Skip to main content

Can we as a people be learned, with that then translated into teaching?


With our current knowledge on computers and the time that we're currently in- the time of advancement- Yes. It's wholly possible and Google are already working on this.

Can we a people be learned and translated to something teachable;
Computers programmed to learn like us

A computer: able to simulate, collect data, and calculate; able to learn.
A person: As we begin- learning, but having a built in knowledge from genes, environment, etc (massively shortened list)

A computer will go into each moment to make a choice based on information; outcomes, right and wrong, what is there without something. A person will do the same, with information based on what has been learned and 'face', factors such as emotions, who they are as a person, things that affect us as humans which aren't taught, just built in. 

The computer is missing a 'face'.
Can a person, this 'face' be learned?

Rather than having something that learns try and be, have it be what it has learned. A computer can't 'be'. A computer does, calculating its moves from hard, cold information, data- without a face. A person learns and is taught by people, by us, so we should teach computers the same way.

I have written this document to inform. It has been written to advance, to set structures-outlines for the concept, to advance technology and propose a new way for computers to be programmed, to work, to be conscious and to be self aware.
You’re welcome to quote, cite and link to this content and with permission beforehand, use and/or work on it. I welcome feedback in all forms, so please leave a comment on this post if you feel there’s something to add or contribute.

Inspiration  Google: Deepmind (Google) Source: Tech Insider | Inspiration Mar/o Source: SethBling
Trial-and-error methods of (teaching) a self-learning computer (learning)

A person learned; What

A summary on how we learn as people, what we have, what we are- an introduction to how we can step towards computers being more like us.

A person (as a person) is learned when it is past learning, or from times it’s acting from something that it hasn't learned. These opportunities for learning are the outliers of normal data, a result either coming in unexpected or as something very different to other results. These outliers are the stragglers from the logical answers, those from the ones and zeros, the black and white, the yes and no- it has something else affecting the decision- these are the opposite of what would be expected of the computer before learning; these are the human moments in our lives.

If we were have the option of doing (and chose this option) something that either we as a person, us as a society or as fact/in principle see as wrong, it would be an outlier. Our world teaches, trains us to stay safe, to to do what is right (according to our rules, survival) and to have a certain goal in life but on occasion, 'face' takes over and we make a choice for ourselves. We might ask why. The truth is there- what made us do it, why, what inside of us told us to go against and to do the opposite of what the computer (or a teacher, parent, the law) does. We can learn why and know why, but we choose not to accept these as facts, to not take in this information.
Reality might be too much. Doubt, fear, insecurity, ego- we don't accept or hear the facts because of ‘face’, or because it would hurt our feelings, but they are fact. A computer would take this information as such. We might not accept them as possible outcomes, but the computer does. Once face has been learned for long enough from being able to ask why once a person's why has been learned long enough, these factors would be taken into future calculations and if it has learned to do so (from the past, or from knowing the person well enough), it does what a/the person would do.

By asking why we can begin to map the way the person's instincts work: where these variables, outcomes come from, what they do, and similar traits that are also likely to be affecting the person. This, through manipulation of the environment around them, could be tested- or it could be learned naturally. Either by taking the person to an environment they haven’t been trained for, or by giving them tests/tasks they haven’t been taught to solve, these moments can be created and learned from without having to wait for it to occur naturally.

A more natural approach will let the person have their own life that can be learned, taking longer- having to copy and live their life through to an older age, if any at all can be reached in time a natural life. This would, if possible, leave us with more organic results that apply to people who haven’t been forced into the alternative.
How long, though, would a person have to be learned, copied?


-solution given for =learned
-calculation ==(from) =learned ='face'
-solution based on ==


-solution taught/observed for =learned (if taught) and =learned ‘face’ (if observed)
-calculation == (from) =learned =learned 'face' (if learned)
Solution based on ==

When something is done differently- an outlier in the results- it can learn. Ask why. Information can be collected on what 'face' is, when it affects us, how, why. Again- rather than try have something that can't 'be', have it collect the information as information, rather a feeling, life 'face'. 'Face' would be taken into the computer's calculation if it has already been learned.

A person learned;

How our computer can learn from a person- or group of people- to know what we are well enough to make the same choices as us.

An exact copy, a simulation of a current life in progress from the very beginning.
The environment copied, everything done and learned from within that (simulation) and throughout the life, learned is collected as data. If the computer can learn what is being taught, both the computer and a person can grow as a person does.
One instance of the computer.

Another instance seconds in the future.
Have both the computer and person do nothing. For the computer, in its simulation, run the question through its 'life'. Once a gap of enough time has been created, ask our person the same question. Have a schedule for both to follow if needed, but the life of both should be the same if: A)
The question is based on fact - 1+1=?
B) The computer has learned the person long enough (if the question isn't fact (e.g. 'what would you do if x ?))
C) The computer is constantly in the ‘future’ state with the same (constantly refreshing) past of the person; with the past refreshed to the person's and the question asked, paused, and gap created.

Written in Italics is our way of restarting and creating the gap at any time- used in the following-
The computer lives as it thinks the person would. It makes its choices from what it has learned, as has the person. These results would be, at the start, based on pure knowledge without emotion and no ‘face’ whatsoever.

If the person made the same choice, add the outcome and situation to its past, to take from later as we do (experience, knowledge)
If not, reset the future instance (to prevent the two drifting apart in their lives) and ask: why? Why did they make the human choice and what made it human- why did the computer still make the computer’s choice? More has to be learned. It has to be taken as the person either making the wrong choice, learning, or as a moment when instinct was called upon and used. It's an unusual result, a choice made using anything but knowledge and experience- an outlier.

Collect the data- what happened, the outcome, and ask why. There are two choices- one made from fact, another from whom the person is. If it isn't the first, the one that the computer would make, then it is the second and should be learned. A one or a zero, either knowing or feeling- now taken and used as data, learned from the person now teaching the computer. It teaches the computer as time goes on- rather than having the generations (what is used in the sources linked at the top) we create the map of our brain (that the examples already have, of possible moves (buttons to press) and options)

Eventually- with enough data- a person could be known and predictions might be made. A computer would 'be', a life could be learned and as a life, taught. I'll be on the possible uses later in this piece, after when about how long it takes to learn.

A less organic way, again, would be to have people teach the computers in our everyday lives. This would be much faster (and more efficient), a way to 'crowd source' our source for computers.
-Google Captcha/verification data teaching computers how to see and recognise houses, vehicles, faces, storefronts, signs to better improve GPS, self-driving cars and facial recognition. Traffic control, routes and destinations, recognising people on the way.

User data and browsing habits to understand the paths we take to get from A to B, what we share with friends whilst doing so, and why we did it- what we felt (though the 'how are you feeling?' and geo-tags.
A simulated life where the data is stored brought to life by teaching it to also ask why- to apply that, to look into the data to know. A lifetime of information both here and with the methods mentioned in this section; enough to predict and know.

We as people learn from schools, parents, from life. We (our programming) isn't changed once we're born, we are only taught. This should be applied to any computer we want to be human, too. We can't expect any other method to work, as it isn't any one human unless it's taught like any one human. 
I don't know about you, reader, but I was taught in school from books, the five W's[*], behavioural traffic lights, and writing 'lines'. Anything else I learned or did was learned from home or from what I personally thought. There were more, and both the above and more of the ways people can be taught have been written into this document (some may be variations etc, but there are quite a few in the piece as a whole).
There are methods of teaching people, short and handy little pieces of information that can be taught in some way. Most are written in a format that a computer would be able to read, once it's taught to learn.

Note: We should know, before teaching, that a computer will store information like us- differently to everyone else. The code will be the computer's brain, and the words it uses, the methods of storing the information, and how it interprets it all will be different to anything else, and it will be subject to change once it becomes more and more aware, over time. 

[*] The Five W'sFive Ws and Sometimes How5W1H, or Six Ws are questions whose answers are considered basic in information gathering or problem solving. They are often mentioned in journalism (cf. news style), research, and police investigations.[1] They constitute a formula for getting the complete story on a subject.[2] According to the principle of the Five Ws, a report can only be considered complete if it answers these questions starting with an interrogative word:[3]
(Source: Wikipedia) 

A person learned;

How long for a person to be known well enough to be copied, simulated, and used in why?

It isn't what needs to be taught that takes time. A person is taught constantly throughout their early life, and a computer can store the data easier, focusing on the subconscious ways it affects us also (with the extra time it has while the person is still calculating). Enough outliers, examples of and information on the way we act as people would have to be collected first. This is what our time is sunk into.

First, we learn. At school, from our environment, parents teaches and authority figures etc. We are protected, and the setting is so that we don't have to make a huge amount of choices above knowledge: exams, tests, class rather than survival, growth, learning on who we are.
We don't know who we are. We learn that in our own way, as a teaching, lesson, journey, past school. Puberty, hormones, tragedy, free time and the changes that we go through as teenagers, setting up to be a grown, adult men and women. A child can be trained to be taught (search use of triggers, conditioning, planned trauma etc) but these are extreme examples of teachings- a ‘normal’ child is taught from school, and trained/conditioned in smaller ways that we don’t think of (but might not think of as 'right’). We can take what happens to someone as a child to know what they are like on some level- our childhood affects us for life- but we have to wait for the coming of age before they learn who they are; a perfect time too, as the computer can learn who the person is on a ‘face’ level as the person discovers it.

Most times, the computer is still mirroring the person. It goes through what the person goes through but without the confusion, doubt, etc, it has information on the person. Without the flood on our brains- what we're experiencing, the mania of the real world, the computer takes what is learned on 'face' here and understands, uses, learns while a person becomes confused, worried.

When, though, do we stop having to learn this?

How long does a computer need of learning a person before it can be a person?
6? 14? 18? 21?
Years? Months?

A crude summary of us-
By 6 we’ve learned our place, that we are human in a society of other humans. At 14 we begin seriousness of the teenage years and all of what was explained above. 18, we’re ‘ready’ to ‘go on into the world’ and by 21, we’ve learned about the world.
Smaller scales of this would be the holiday emotions felt- A yearly Christmas, Valentine's day, New years. Larger would be the mid-life crisis, the carefree old age, the stages of our entire lives.
The computer would have to not only take our past experiences and what it has learned of the person to use in the present/future, but it would have to know of the seasonal and stages-of-life emotions and environmental variables that affect us. It would have to compare everything to everything to then know what needs to be compared.

I’m working on trying to recover something I wrote a while ago about these ‘rules’ and the spans of life. I’ll post it, link here, and hopefully it’ll help outline the rules outlined in these paragraphs.

At a certain age, once a ‘face’ has been learned well enough for the computer to know the person, perhaps they will go through these same stages of life. If, once face has been learned well enough, the computer knows about death and its termination upon the person it copies experiencing it, the computer will go through these same stages. If, once death is learned and taken into our calculations, the calculations and actions that are done are more human- to protect, prolong, or to succeed.

Uses for such a computer;
Not to be confused with the computer asking why- this is more what can it be used for, who can it be used on.  

Why-ever we live. 
Computers would be able to do our jobs better, faster, without getting bored or tired. They would be able to learn and advance faster, and they would live longer. These are the obvious uses, what comes to mind for anyone.
But if a computer could constantly advance and learn as we do, it would eventually reach its own limits, such as we have, and it would create something as we are doing here.

The why to create this would be because it's a challenge, it's time, and it's where our world and society is going. 

Eventually, the computer/generations of computer would reach a point where it does the same as our society, where it begins to learn from what it is rather than what people are, it'll define itself and the society that it now is. The computer will advance past its limits and do what we are doing now- creating a computer- only in a different, more advanced way.
It would be a good idea to, at some point, have them inhabit another planet. If they could build their own computers, were given the resources to build upon the planet they inhabited, it would only lead to further advancement- rather than the inevitable (and often warned about) end of us through them. 

First, the use of these computers would be to learn, to accept the challenge and to progress in every aspect of our lives from here. Personally, my interest lies in what they do with their consciousness- would a computer (that thinks its human) be lonely? What would it say to the meaning of life? What would it be to itself?
Don't let the size of this section worry you. It grows as the computer grows, learns, becomes able to do more. 

Teaching the computer and the levels of use;
Who would be learned from, what scaling there is to the level of consciousness?

Having an instance of the computer go through school isn't enough. School would be the level of knowledge the person has, but nobody takes everything in from this time. The other side (from knowledge), 'face' is set up as a child for the person to grow and have this affect them later. 

The computer would have to go through the same life to have the same amount of knowledge. On the first part of the calculation, the computer has to know what the person knows to have a chance at making the same choice. Knowing more could've helped the person, and people who know less process their (emotions, instinct) 'face' better. If on the first part of the calculation both are the same, it's safer to assume that the person making a different choice to the computer was doing so because of something else- not through lack of knowledge. 

With the base laid out at childhood, the teenage years is the 'face' learning for the person, where everything they are comes in a form specific to their childhood experiences. The computer can learn 'face' best here, but would've missed information from their past that could be helpful in understanding (and predicting) the person best.

Any one person could be learned, but it would be best to have them studied and copied from birth. Having their family history to study would be helpful in predicting how they might behave, with anything from genes to traits that could be passed down, to behaviours, ideals and lifestyles that might help us know more before we begin. 
With any one person learned, many people can be grouped to learn any one group of people. We would not only be able to learn person one, person two, etc, but we (if there's space) could group many people, collaborate the results and have an entire group- an entire population, even- simulated, predicted, learned. Again, i'll have to find my piece on the spans of life.

Conclusion - Beginning


Curent Projects; Highlight - UxAC

The Despair Code .pI

The Despair Code .pII