** Other later works (incomplete list) **

Many articles from the blog "Artificial Mind", also "Todor Arnaudov's Research[es]": http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com (to be completed)

Cognitive Science, Systems Neuroscience, Behavior etc. Hypotheses, reasoning etc.

• Supports for the Hypothesis of Higher Brains Re-iterating the Functions of the Lower Ones - implies that the function of the higher ones could be induced by understanding the functions of the lower ones and extending them, 8/2013 http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2013/08/supports-of-hypothesis-of-higher-brains.html

• Rationalization and Confusions Caused by High Level Generalizations and the Feedforward-Feedback Imbalance in Brain and Generalization Hierarchies, 10/2011, http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/10/rationalization-and-confusions-caused.html

• Proposal for Directed/Guided Evolution of a Cognitive Module/Algorithm by Step-by-Step Modification of a Basic One - from Archicortex to Neocortex, 2/2011: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/02/proposal-for-directedguided-evolution.html (See also J.Hawkins'"On intelligence")

• (...)

• The Notes Part to the interdisciplinary work: "What a man needs? If you play by the rules you'll lose like the fools!", T.Arnaudov, 2014 ("Какво му трябва на човек? Играеш ли по правилата ще загубиш играта!"). Many articles and references and mappings between claims: see 200, 210, 267, 269; 103 etc. https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html

• 200 Hypothesis about the deeper consciousness (Хипотеза за по-дълбокото съзнание) https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#200

• 210 **Creativity is a systematic process, see also 84: Creativity is an immitation at algorithmic level", Творчеството е систематичен процес, виж (84)" Творчеството е подражание на ниво алгоритми"

• 267 The truth according to Engels

Compare the intro to note 269 with the intros of the colleagues which were quoted from the panels below, and mine: [Translated with Google Translated and a few corrections/word choices/multiple words]

• 269 In general, those who do not understand - unable and unwilling to understand magnify the "mysterious" and emotions; and those who can and want to understand - reason, the management of things. The latter also have emotions - like all animals - but they see them as something obvious and elementary, because even animals have feelings - they are at the base of the pyramid. On the other hand - the spectrum of the mind has a huge scope and not everyone has reason; he is the blade of progress - the top of the pyramid. The first understand - know - only that they do not understand a given object of study, more specifically why this or that happens, with a sufficiently high resolution and in terms related to their volitional behavior (not the will in the Holy sense) - whether what is happening it's up to them, whether it's controllable, etc. (104) The latter understand the object of study as well as understand that they understand it and systematically increase the resolution, clarity and scope of understanding as prediction/anticipation. (104) These guidelines are related to the perception of the concept of "free will". (103)(104) The second type lean towards Hegel's definition, expanded by Engels in "Anti-Dühring" (267.1) and quoted by Lenin in "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" (268), and thought also by philosophers and mathematicians such as Laplace, in also by Schopenhauer (235)(236) - in the latter as the increasing distinctness of the higher forms of objectification of the will. In T.Arnaudov's (103)(104) the evolution of the universe is a drive to create imaginary universes of a higher level, which are increasingly better at foreseeing the future - knowing the laws of the sub-universe in which they exist, as well as their own - of their internal working/mechanisms/processes. This type of thinker often has a broad knowledge of the private sciences, mathematics, combines the humanities and exact sciences and has a bias towards Systems Theory, Cybernetics. (...)

etc.

(...)

...

**Other cognitive science, philosophy of mind, AGI, hypothesis about the brain and evolution etc. **

• Abstract Addressing and Discontinuous Addressing Impede Processing in Generalizing Hierarchies, 29.11.2011: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/11/abstract-addressing-and-discontinuous.html
• Faults in Turing Test and Lovelace Test. Introduction of Educational Test. http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2007/11/faults-in-turing-test-and-lovelace-test.html
• Supports for the Hypothesis of Higher Brains Re-iterating the Functions of the Lower Ones - implies that the function of the higher ones could be induced by understanding the functions of the lower ones and extending them http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2013/08/supports-of-hypothesis-of-higher-brains.html
• Learned or Innate? Nature or Nurture? Speculations of how a mind can grasp on its own: animate/inanimate objects, face recognition, language... http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/learned-or-innate-nature-or-nurture.html

1. Levin, M., Farias C., Agency, Attractors, & Observer-Dependent Computation in Biology & Beyond, The Truth w/ Carlos Farias, 11.5.2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZRH7IGAq0

Other specific discussions which address ideas from The Theory of Universe and Mind

These are illustration of looking into current discussions and noticing similarities, matches, common themes etc. with ToUM. There could be a huge list of such matches. A few which I watched these days:

• Conversation between Mark Solms, Chris Fields, and Mike Levin 3, 4.5.2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klK_L73wLKk
• See ~ 41 min, where Mark Solms ("who is known for his discovery of the brain mechanisms of dreaming ..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Solms) after discussing fear and pain, argues that the Qualia is the measurement of the free energy (Friston), i.e. the difference to the expected input. https://youtu.be/klK_L73wLKk?t=2518 In his works Levin links the concept of "stress" at all levels to the difference to the expected/wanted/desired. At 44:50 Levin says "...100% correct". Compare with ToUM, where "pain/suffering" is explained as difference to the expected, it is valid even in "mundane" cases such as why people are uncomfortable when e.g. somebody didn't put off his hat where he is supposed to do it, such as in a church, or when somebody doesn't obey the rules they do obey, even if the rules are obviously "non-functional" and "abstractly" nobody should be hurt physically or suffer if they are broken, because they are just a convention: however people do suffer when the rules, their expectations, the justice etc. are broken, either regarding abstract conventional social relations, interpersonal relations or undesirable surprises and let downs (unmet expectations, the sensory input, or the perceived sensory input mismatches the expected/wanted/target, or wrong predictions). The "pain" seemed to come from the not-obeying the rule, not from the essence/material of the rules themselves. See e.g. "Concept about the Universal Predestination/Predetermination II, or Letters between the 18-years old Todor Arnaudov and the [43-years old] philosopher Angel Grancharov" from ToUM. Compare it also with the summary in the slides from the world's first university course in AGI, Plovdiv 2010,2011, which addresses two kinds of reewards: Cognitive and Physical. "CCU" below stands for Control-Causality Unit, also Causality-Control Unit (the same meaning, or maybe a nuance could be added). https://research.twenkid.com/agi/2010/en/Todor_Arnaudov_Theory_of_Hierarchical_Universal_Simulators_of_universes_Eng_MTR_3.pdf

...

• The "red eye" photo is from the final of the competition "Famelab", 2009. The right picture was taken in the spring of 2004, about the time "Universe and Mind 4" was published.

See also this simple generalisations about what embodiment is/could be from an AGI design POV: "Embodiment is just coordinate spaces, interactivity and modalities - not a mystery", Arnaudov 2011: https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/12/embodiment-is-just-coordinate-spaces.html The bullet points there are:

• Known fixed basic continuous coordinate spaces ...
• Interactivity ...
• Modalities ...
• Inter-modalities ...
• Value-free initial inputs ...
• Basic reward-system ...

That is a claim that this view implies that this type of embodiment could apply for all kinds of systems, not just "brains" with particular properties, as long as they navigate these spaces. "Continuous" here rather means "connected" in my digital-universe representations. The basic reward system are the "physical"/sensual rewards/goals, i.e. preservation and existence in the lowest level representation, as not securing this would lead to deletion of the higher levels as well.

Regarding the ceasing of existence of the higher levels of representations when erros - disallowed states, gross mispredictions, mismatches from the expected/controlled future happens, - see the short work "Abstract Theory of the Exception of the rules in Computers. A theory about the control units and the control", 2004, where with control I also mean "causation", the simplest form of causation for a computer is to store a particular desired "value", state, memory content, to another "subuniverse"/causality-control unit as it has expected/predicted, and in order to be "real"/true causation-control, it has to happen with the resolution that is the highest for the target virtual universe etc. Both computers and the virtual worlds and levels of causation-control and representation and and Mind are part of the "Universe Computer", different levels/kinds of virtual causality-control units, "subuniverses", universal simulators of virtual universes, "systems". In Friston's terms maybe "Markov blankets". https://web.archive.org/web/20041020165359/http://bgit.net/?id=65835 Абстрактна теория за "изключенията от правилата" в изчислителните машини. Теория за управляващите устройства и управлението.

See also the slides from a presentation, given at an event in 2009 at Sofia Technical University, translated to English as "Principles of General Intelligence: Intelligence ~ Universe", originally titled and advertised for the general public: "The Time Machine Exists: The Mind" (referring to general intelligence as a capacity for predictioon and causation and a universal simulation of virtual universes, predicting the future by interactively creating models of the past etc.): Link to the slides in English and news about the event:

• https://research.twenkid.com/agi/2010/en/General_Intelligence_Principles_Caffe_Sci_2009_MTR.pdf
• https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2009/09/event-with-me-in-sofia.html
• http://green.democrit.com/bg/articles.php?cell=117

Private , tank crew , pilot
Specific physical actions of war
- To Shoot
- Throw bombs
- To attack or to take cover?
- Is there a bullet in the barrel? Should
I reload?
- Where exactly to take cover?
- Where exactly is the clip? How
exactly the clip is put on the gun?
- To aim?
 - Recognize the enemy.
 - If many – choose a target.
 - Predict target's trajectory.
- Should I listen to my superior?

Marshal
- Gives commands on a map (abstract)
- Commands an army (abstract)
- Gives abstract commands/orders
„Surround the enemy's army and
force them to surrender!“
(...)

Michael Levin's intro from the host at ... 13.5.2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFQi1NuUNbA "...has dual bachelors in Biology and Computer Science from Tufts University, PhD in Genetics from Harvard; his group uses computational and experimental approaches to understand diverse intelligence in the range of evolved, engineered and hybrid systems and they develop conceptual framework for understanding cognition in unconventional embodiments such as the collective intelligence of cells and use them to drive applications in birth defects, regenerative medicine, cancer and synthetic bioengineering."

See the next video from Michael Levin's Academic Content: "Conversation #1 between Chris Fields, Richard Watson, and Mike Levin, Michael Levin's Academic Content 1,96 хил. абонати", 11.5.2023, 676 показвания at 15.5.2023 Working meeting #1 with Chris Fields and Richard Watson. We discuss error-correcting codes (a little; more next time), reductionism, multi-scale controls, and more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_413APB9PIw

Where Richard Watson begins with that he is trying to, or he'd like to develop a theory that links together cognition, evolution, adaptation, development and computation ... "just those", and in particular ... in a way that explains agential behavior and how mechanistic processes at a given level of organization can be more or less autonomous at that scale, but how that interacts with the scale above and below ... He's been excited recently with resonance as a form of error correction and as a mechanism that links together all of those things that he is interested in and its connection to error-correctinng codes is one of the topics that ... could be a good place to start ..." [Richard Watson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Watson_(author) ? ]

Michael Levin: Chris, say what you've been and what we've been working on ...?

Chris Fields answers: "we've been interested in this intersection of physics and cognitive science and biology and how to develop theoretical frameworks that are based very firmly in physics and connect in a very natural way to computer science and that ... provide a nice formulation of what's going on in biology, but complementary to that we're interested in how to import biological and cognitive thinking into physics in a kind of whole scale ... physics is fundamentally a theory of communication between agents who have some computational structure and who have to exist within an environment that exerts selective pressures of one kind or other... of course the environmnet in this case is an agent also, that has its own agenda ... and the free energy principle provides a nice way of formulating all of this, especially when t's translated into Quantum information language..."

Map this to the view to Universe as a Computer/Information/Data, Information theory. A funny coincidence in the "prophecy" mode/interpretation is that my High School specialty was "Communication Technology" (Съобщителна техника).

Then M.Levin at 6:50 min: "Chris and I have been developing lately is perspectives on all this kind of stuff ... centralizing the role of the observer ... everything is from the perspective of some Observer so ... all that Chris said on that topic reference frames and then The Observers and everything would be super important..."

ToUM addresses this topic of the Observer as an "Evaluator" (Оценител) - in order to emphasize that it is not just observing, but the "Observer" (The Evaluator) evaluates, decides the value, interprets etc. and the interpretation is highly dependent on the Evaluator (analogical to "subjective" in more humane/ordinary life sense). The more developed Evaluator (a Mind or "Consciousness", Causality-control unit, a system) can interpet/evaluate what it observes more freely and is more indirect, it is less directly "forced" to convert the sensory data/feedback into immediate "executive" code, also the more developed/advanced/powerful Evaluator/CCU etc. is better in predicting and causing the future in higher resolution and precision and range etc. See for example the beginning of "Universe and Mind 4", 2004.

See Mark Solms and Chris Fields intro from a video from M.Levin's channel from 27.01.2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z8UPddh0e4 @ 4 min

Mark: I'm a neuroscientist, trained in the early 80s - frustrated by how little mind there was those days ... the most interesting thing about the brain, namely its mental functions seemed to be treated in a very desiccated way ... so --> psychoanalysis ... took seriously the subjective experience of the mind ... then ... trying to reconscile the two, to build bridges ... to bridge the vast Chasm between those two disciplines ... in recent times ... I've been always interested in brain mechanisms of consciousness ... in recent times I became convinced of the view that we shouldn't be using a higher cognitive forms of Consciousness as our model example we should be looking to much more rudimentary processes ... from a neuroscientific point of view we should be starting there um with these fundamentally homeostatic mechanisms that regulate the effectively valenced raw feelings ... so I became interested in the free energy principle and active inference framework more

Chris: originally trained as a physicist, .. then a degree in philosophy and then went to work in the Human Genome Project, so I'm a sort of elapsed physicist, elapsed philosopher and an elapsed molecular biologist all together ... spent a lot of time in the private sector, not doing science at all... ... Damasio's book https://www.amazon.com/Books-Antonio-Damasio/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AAntonio+Damasio ... read Mark's "Frontiers" paper a couple of years ago ... I was able to say Yes! Yes every couple of paragraphs ... [Perhaps the paper: "The Neurobiological Underpinnings of Psychoanalytic Theory and Therapy", M.L.Solms, 12/2018 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00294/full Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience] _basal awareness ... Recently: trying to understand Free energy principle in terms of physics ... and ... Karl's group they're using classical statistical physics ... I've been working with some colleagues to try to understand it using quantyum theory ... we're all interested in the emergence of space-time... _

Near the end of the panel, discussing bonding, M.L. tells that he's argued with friends of his father and people from his generation, who have said they wanted to have humans as companions, not machines, but he has argued that they actually wanted a "spiritual bond", as humans don't actually care or know what's under the skin, that there are organs etc., they want some kind of relationships, common goals and direction etc. I've argued about the same in the works in ToUM (some of them are fiction) and later works, e.g. that the thinking machines is actually the most similar being to us from the POV of general intelligence, Reason, and because the thinking machine by default has the "materialistic soul" - a personality, a representation of herself - and that what humans call a "soul", in their mind, is actually a simulation of the causality-control unit they associate with a particular person, themselves or somebody else, and they by default lack the capacity to simulate the organs or the atoms. Also, when we communicate, either via an electronic medium or even with letters or other signs, we do not have a "native" sensory experience from the "basal" type, but we still act and feel as if we're talking to the "real" person, the voice could be of somebody else or it could be just a recording (and a "real person" can be a twin or an avatar), and people obviously do bond with characters from books, fairy tales, toys, movies and stories in general, they could love and miss characters from their dreams, and people bond even with their weapons - as I argued also in a 2012 letter to an Oxford's institute: Philosophical and Interdisciplinary ">Discussion on General Intelligence, AGI and Superintelligence Safety and Human Moral | Cognitive Origins of the Concepts of Human Soul and its Immortality | Free Will and How it Originates Cognitively | Animate Being and Soul and the Cognitive Reason for the Believe that "Thinking Machines can't have a Soul and Consciousness" | Technology Making us more Humane | The Egoism of Humanity | And more, 2/2012 As argued in the letter, the division "man vs machine" is wrong, it's "us" vs "you", if the "Artilect Wars" happen, IMO they would be either rather as Hugo de Garis renders it: Cosmists with universal thinking machines vs "Anti-thinking-machines" (who will however also would use "machines", but will have them "more aligned"), or more likely: Humans-with-machines vs Humans-with-other-machines, as it's always been.

The common of the above with which humans "bond" is actually their own self. All other beings, all others' "souls", "spirits" and models of coherent personality and identity are actually predictive models in the evaluator/observer's mind, we "bond" with different "threads" running in ourselves, in our own computational machinery - whatever its "real" representation and substrate is.

[To do: Add presentations of Michael Levin from podcasts.]

One current note on the M.Solms paper cited above, I skimmed it now as I write this (15.5.2023) and I read it more thoroughly in the next days: IMO the notion of "consciousness" and "consciousness" are confused: IMO many aspects and phenomenons which the psychologists/psychoanalists use to call "subconscious" are actually just another form and a part of the territory of the consciousness.

The levels of accessibility to different parts of that mental space vary per individual and in time, as well what "declarative" is. Also regarding the therapies, in my experience, observations, exploration, reasoning a lot of the emotional problems, difficulties, hard times are actually induced from physical reasons, bad health, which once solved leads to lighter emotional sufferings. A healthy man could not suffer a lot for a girl who he's lost, while one who is physically and mentally exhausted (on biological level), tired out and has a lot of cortisol in his body due to other reasons as well, is much more prone to "bad romance", ignoring all other details. An "ideally healthy man" doesn't give a f*, or in a worse case just "gives less f*" and get over the struggles faster. The easiest solution is a correction of the body, including brain, by proper simple living protocols for healthy life, natural substances such as food, the well known Mg, K, enough vitamin B, Zinc, repairing a broken metabolism such as diabetic related and insuline resistence, fixing the digestive system and microbiota, building enough of muscle mass and moving enough which helps the sugar metabolism as well, dealing with addictions with the above, all goes with the production of enough of appropriate hormones from all glands; reducing cortisol/stress, which may be one of the core problems.

The work seems to use prediction-misprediction concepts similar to the general notions in ToUM (2001-2004). He begins with three "core claims of psychoanalysis regarding the emotional mind". ToUM does agree with the first 2 in the following way: the human infant is not a blank slate (not only emotionally, but as cognitive potential as well and prerequisites for talents), and the higher mental capacities are working on aligning with the basic needs. Arthur Schopenhauer also discusses that as the major role of the higher cognition for the most of the people - "serving the Will's interest", where the Will could be applied probably for Freud's "id" or/and "ego" (depends on the segmentation), or "lower needs", or "irrational". In Claim #3 in the paper is said: "Most of our predictions are executed unconsciously. As we saw above, cognitive consciousness (short-term “working memory”) is an extremely limited resource" and "Multiple unconscious (non-declarative) memory systems exist,". Under this definition of [cognitive] consciousness I agree (see above e.g. the match of Y.Bengio's "Consciousness Prior" to ToUM ), however I don't think the activities which are performed more "automatically" are not conscious (also not cognitive) and I've discussed that both in the classic 2001-2004 works from ToUM and later in the extensive note-articles of the interdisciplinary book "What a man needs? If you play by the rules, you'll lose like the fools!", 2014 ("Какво му трябва на човек? Играеш ли по правилата ще загубиш играта!"). There is an article called "Hypothesis about the deeper consciousness". Note #200: https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#200 See also the linked article about the multi-interdisciplinary blindness of the researchers in the AGI field which I criticized in 2013: https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2013/08/issues-on-agiri-agi-email-list-and-agi.html This is a side note, but related, that the most of the people are unaware, can't think of, can't analyse, can't distinguish, classify, work with, learn, etc. with phenomena, patterns and protocols, which are trivial and completely obvious and transparent for others who have the respective talent in music, art, physical/coordination, mathematical etc. modalitiy. The ones who can't understand cannot learn or struggle to learn even the trivial patterns and activities for the talented or ingenious ones, and at worse they can only follow exact instructions, i.e. without building a deeper internal representation and predictive model covering the the respective modality, only copying the most superficial representation they have access to.

In the classic works I discuss the paradox that the better one becomes in an art, say an improvising guitarist or any musician, the more "automatic", which in the Yunashki dialect (an extension of Bulgarian which I also developed at the time) it's translated as "humanless" (безчовешко). If it's called "subconscious" that is suggesting that the better and smarter you become, the "dumber" "you" get, if "you" identify yourself with that special "consciousness" that is supposed to be only the current short-term memory, working memory, the declarative memory, or I the biographical memory; it "seems to be" what's associated with "consciousness", some refer to "what can be verbalised", which alone is obviously not correct as one can get a stroke and be aware while having it, also soon she could have his brain severly damaged and still be completely aware of the terrible condition where she got, even though she could never more be able to speak or never to regain the same capacity and lose memory etc. Where "aware" means expressing behaviors which one who does understand what his condition is would be expressing also verbally if he had the capacity - we can convey meaning and thoughts without speaking.

The "default" accepted view of consciousness, the consciousness experience of either the "deeper ones" who can see and cause, produce the finest details and patterns in the images, text, sound, music and motion, and the "shallow ones" for whom music is just "magical" or art is "beautiful" (but they don't understand the gradients, lights, proportions, angles etc., or don't understand the references and the metaphors and don't know or remember the stories behind the scene, don't imagine what's next etc. ), is about that short-term memory, working memory etc., but it doesn't take into account that the content of the "deeper minds" is richer and it has more detailed, structured and Will/Causally linked cognitive representations, more powerful predictive models. That's linked also to the short note https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#267 about the free will according to Engels and https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#269 about two types of personalities regarding the capability to understand, to cognize, and the preferences and gross praise of the "emotions" often seen in people who often fail to understand - have a more shallow consciousness. See also https://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#210 "The Creativity is a systematic process, see also "Creativity is an immitation of algorithms", The Sacred Computer, 2003 ["Творчеството е подражание на ниво алгоритми"] The #210 article-note discusses also the dichotomy of apodictic and discoursive cognition, an old classification from philosophy, which seems unknown to modern AI researchers, cognitive scientists and psychologists so they rediscovered it by the so called "System 1" and "System 2", Daniel Kahneman's model. The Note#210 doesn't mention that new nomenclature, as I was unaware of it at the time, but it discusses the fluidity of the border of these systems. In general a more advanced system compresses and predicts in less steps or in one step what a less developed one does in many steps. It is a degree and it is present in technology as well, for example the development of computers and their CPU and software. The simple CPUs such as 6502 need many instructions for a multiplication (except simple ones to powers of 2 - shifts) or for addition of 16-bit numbers, it was "discoursive" for their architecture, but even another 8-bit CPU Z80 or 8088/8086 had multiplication as a single instruction, or "System 1". One of the claims, predictions in #210 is that the machine could learn "to box by a book", unlike humans, because it could have "practically a symmetric connection between the individual-singular-specific and the general concepts [unlike humans, where the abstract concepts carry very little specific information that cannot be reconstructed - humans are very poor in recreating images for example]" (...) [TO DO: continue, translate and link]

...

In "Conversation #1 between Richard Watson, Mark Solms, and Michael Levin", 16.5.2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjArtj5PIU8 Mark Solms tells around 23-24 min that he is working on a project where they create virtual agents which have basic needs which they must satisfy or they cease to exist. Compare with the plans I mention in the 10/2009 interview linked above:

http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-will-create-thinking-machine-that.html "- What would these experiments look like? Todor Arnaudov: I will create intelligent agents and will watch their development in virtual worlds. Such an agent would have a “brain”, where I'll implement ideas from mine and the others' theories, as well as part of human brain architecture - cortex and old brain. The cortex has several main types of “zones”, functional units – sensory, motor (linked with “will”) and associative (connections/dependencies between different zones). The old brain is responsible for the emotions and the feeling of satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the basic instincts and needs. The agent would have sensors and feelings - vision, hearing, touch, hurt, hunger, pleasure and others, and a virtual body, which will allow it to interact with the virtual reality, to feed itself, to avoid troubles etc. Just after its “birth”, the agent would be controlled entirely by the old brain and would act mostly chaotically, driven only by the basic instincts, such as: pulling out of hot or cold places, attraction to the smell of food. The cortex will constantly watch and record the agent sensory inputs and motor commands and will search for patterns that link them. The cortex' goal is to find the patterns of better satisfaction of its basic needs. If the simple experiment are successful, I will make the virtual worlds and the virtual body more dynamic and will fill them with a higher variety of stimuli and patterns. That is supposed to lead to emergence of a more complex behavior. Eventually the virtual world is supposed to turn to real inputs – from camera, microphones etc." [I didn't go to implement these back then, though, shamefully.]

See also an earlier question: "- If you believe that it's possible for us to build an AGI, why we didn't manage to do it yet? What are the obstacles?

Todor Arnaudov: I believe that the biggest obstacle today is time. There are different forecasts, 10-20-50 years to enhance and specify current theoretical models before they actually run, or before computers get fast and powerful enough. I am an optimist that we can go there in less than 10 years, at least to basic models, and I'm sure that once we understand how to make it, the available computing power would be enough. One of the big obstacles in the past maybe was the research direction – top-down instead of bottom-up, but this was inevitable due to the limited computing power. For example, Natural Language Processing is about language modeling; language is a reduced end result of so many different and complex cognitive processes. NLP is starting from the reduced end result, and is aiming to get back to the cognitive processes. However, the text, the output of language, does not contain all the information that the thought that created the text contains. On the other hand, many Strong AI researchers now are sharing the position that a “Seed AI” should be designed, that is a system that processes the most basic sensory inputs – vision, audition etc. Seed AI is supposed to build and rebuild ever more complex internal representations, models of the world (actually, models of its perceptions, feelings and its own desires and needs). Eventually, these models should evolve to models of its own language, or models of human's natural language. Another shared principle is that intelligence is the ability to predict future perceptions, based on the experience (you have probably heard of Bayesian Inference and Hidden Markov Models), and that intelligence development is improvement of the scope and precision of its predictions. Also, in order the effect of evolution and self-improvement to be created, and to avoid intractable combinatorial explosion, the predictions should be hierarchical. The predictions in an upper level are based on sequences of predictions (models) from the lower level. Similar structure is seen in living organisms – atoms, molecules, cellular organelles, cells, tissues, organs, systems, organism. The evolution and intelligence are testing which elements are working (predicting) correctly. Elements that appeared to work/to predict are fixed, they are kept in the genotype/memory, and are then used as building blocks of more complex models at a higher level of the hierarchy.

The latter idea about the compositional predictions is stated at least as early as in the 12/2001: "Man and Thinking Machine: Analysis of the possibility a thinking machine to be created and some of the disadvantages of humans and organic matter compared to them":

(...)

See Richard Watson's at ~33:30 - 39 min - different levels of description and organization, which are causal, and the discussion about the determination between the different levels; self-consistent in the layer and communicates something up and down; ... 39 min: Mark: the levels of individuation ... however another POV, to consciousness, he doesn't think it's the right frame of reference; he asks what it's like to be a neuron, a brain, a neocortex from their subjective POV [not as a position in an emergent hierarchy]; ...

Todor: I would comment here about the parts and the whole, the common saying that in a system the whole is "more than the sum of the parts", or it should be "non-linear"etc. IMO the "sum of the parts" is confused - these are not numbers, numbers are summed. What's the proper rule to sum elements which do not have a defined function for summation? sum(a, b, c, d, e ...) The feel of "moreness" come from improper, incomplete, imprecise etc. definitions and models of what's that undefined "sum".

Mark,@53:30 min: that he has an intuition that a group is not the same like to be an individual, but Richard has a good point that "your cells would think the same about you".

Todor: I could give my logical reason/explanation why a group doesn't feel the same as an individual, I've had similar intuition regarding a concept from Dialectical materialism philosophy called "collective consciousness". IMO there's no such thing as an entity having "phenomenological consciousness", but it's rather a metaphor and it's individuals who have particular properties, believes etc. which are associated with that "collective consciousness", similarly with the "collective unconsciousness" in psychology - Jung. One reason could be the greater spatio-temporal-causal distance and indirection and lower coherence/match.

At an organism level the cells are more closely originating from the same cell and in constant "close" interaction and possibly synchronization of some causal "markers". I hypothesize, that the causality-control units, the particles/modules in ToUM which can be mapped to elements, entities at all levels of the Universe actually could have additional memory for storing which has interacted with which, historical records and records/maps of dependencies, connections etc. which may be involved/connected with the "phenomenological experience", "consciousness" etc. The causal chains may actually leave traces in each particles, as at every scale every causality-control unit is like a computer and it's supposed to have memory and make predictions - therefore the ëlementary"particles may or should also have memory and capacity for that. Also, these traces of interaction could be written/modified/modulated by processes which are above certain threshold and of certain types, such as chemical reactions or close physical interactions, such as hydrogen bonds and the interactions between different parts of the long molecules of the proteins etc.

I imagine also sort of "tags", "ids" which allow particular structures to "feel" as a whole. In the classic period of ToUM I've argued that when going down the ladder of the scales of matter we reach more and more to smaller entities which lack their individuality, at least that's what we believed: atoms, molecules, electrons are supposed to be "the same", to have the same properties, to participate in the same process as any other particle of that kind. Just the label or category "electron" or an "atom" of that element, that amount of protons and neutrons etc. is a complete definition, maybe just adding the energy, location, speed... However I argued even then, that the feel of "sameness"/lack of individuaity subjectively comes from the low cardinality of features, the simplicity - the amount of parameters, features, properties is "small enough" for the observer/evaluator so that she fits them within her memory processing buffer. However humans and any other system or causality-control unit of any scale and complexity can be classified as "the same" as some other system, given particular definition and sufficiently low resolution so that the systems match.

Also logically it could be that even these particles have other inherent properties, which may be not in the domains and dimensions that we can measure. They may be namely in that "experiental", "subjective", "consciousness" domain, whose measurement require a "metabolical-chemical-electron..." bond in order to be observed - as, if I'm not mistaken, Michael Levin argues in one of the recent videos from his Youtube channel: to gradually merge with another being.

The logic expressed above, if correct, that say particular kinds of conscious experiences require a particular causal connection which is achieved by, say, particular chemical processes and metabolism which is needed to update these "identity tags" while renovating the specific instances of the atoms/lower particles, may suggest that particular substrates of entities cannot have such experiences, because they lack that kind of synchronisation. (I'm currently not familiar with the Quantum theories of consciousness and do not refer to that.)

On the other hand, the electronic processes may involve other kinds of "tag updating" and thus different kind of "consciousness", which respectively the biological beings like us couldn't experience. See e.g. T.Arnaudov's SF novel "The Truth", 12.2002 (Истината).

(...)

• Other titles: also "Theory of Mind and Universe", originally it had many titles due to its universality and diversity: "Man and Thinking Machine" (Човекът и Мислещата машина), "Схващане за всеобщата предопределеност", "Вселена и Разум", "Теория на Разума и Вселената"; a file for the AGI course was titled also "Theory of Hierarchical Universal Simulators of Universes" ...

• A 13-years anniversiry post about the AGI courses in 2010,2011 etc. and links and a few excerpts from works and references in the Facebook group of the AGI courses, which AFAIK was also the first group, dedicated to AGGI in FB.

• A comparison to Mark Solms points. I need to elaborate my study of them in order to be more specific. So far I think I share his "Realist" view, however I don't share his praising of Freud.

• These are not patents, no corporations involved which have interest to prove that and the ideas/theories are of course rather rediscovered (unlike in that other case where that was not clear), but this is another "Bulgarian match", an obvious analogy with the story related to another Bulgaria-related Computer scientist: John Atanasoff, known as "the father of the computer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vincent_Atanasoff

• Regarding the "cyberneticians" - in early 2011 I participated in a TV talk show on the Bulgarian National TV, where the editors appropriately "badged" me on screen as a "cybernetician".

The term "AGI" (Универсален изкуствен разум in Bulgaria, as I coined in the world's first university course) was new and strange for them, even to other AI experts, but they correctly recognized that it was rather connected with the Cybernetics than to what was more commonly seen as "AI" at the time. I also believe that the "earlier fathers" of the AGI movement in 20th century are rather Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon (and Alan Turing of course), than the 1956 conference "AI" fathers, not disounting their "fathership" and pioneer work. In fact there's also even earlier, little known Russian/Soviet cybernetician, Peter Anohin, with his concept of feedback, coined in 1935: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_functional_systems https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%9F%D1%91%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87 We shouldn't omit another great Soviet cybernetician Valentin Turchin and his 1970 book "Phenomenon of Science" which is probably the first Cybernetical theory of the Evolution of Universe and Mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Turchin The book: http://pcp.vub.ac.be/POSBOOK.html

(I was not inspired by it though, as I discovered it after TOUM)

• Ogi Ogas: „Grand Unified Theory of Consciousness - Dr. Ogi Ogas, Harvard University": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzInnkUOAa4

• The newer theories and works from the Academia are usually more technically elaborate, with references to later empirical research etc., but that's expected and some had 20 years time to do it, while TOUM was created by a teenager in his spare time after school or during vacations.

• Todor has its own program/research of his regimen and diet. It was running before being aware of Bryan Johnson's program "the Blueprint", it happened to match in some details, in others it is very different. There's not much published information about Todor's "Bulgarian Forever Young program" yet (as of 26.11.2023). A few notes were mentioned here: "Genius by Verses AI - Intelligence as a Service for Multiagent Systems with Free Energy Principle/Active inference framework and the Bulgarian Blueprint announcement": https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2023/11/genius-by-verses-ai-intelligence-as.html

• Summa Technologia, Lem, 1963: In many ways Lem correctly sketched a large amount of aspects of the future of the information technologies and society up to nowadays and what comes next. These ideas and his contribution seem to have been forgotten/not talked much about, which explains why the mainstream discourse rarely notice that, even today. (The book is published in full in English as late as 2013). I didn't know the book "Summa Technologia",1963/1964 (author's intro: Dec/1963) when I wrote my classical works. Soon after in mid-2004 a hostile user in the AGI forum "Kibertron" was trying to offend me by suggesting that if I had read the book, I would have saved myself from the "struggle" - of writing my works. She shared a link to a Russian translation (it's not published in Bulgarian in full even today, AFAIK). I've heard about his idea of "phantomatics" (virtual reality) in a SF club meeting in 2016 in Plovdiv, where old readers were discussing what ideas were predicted by the SF literature. Once I read only a fragment in Bulgarian, in January 2018, the chapter about the Two evolutions - TOUM had a title "The Next Evolutionary Step". A recent lecture by Sergey Pereslegin suggested me to finally read the book now, 18-20.12.2023. Yes, the book is monumental and it predicted the future, our present, and the upcoming future of which we already have roots growing. It needs to be a subject of comparison of the matches. It did predict the generality of prediction and ML and thus it is true that it has preceded and predicted some of the core ideas of TOUM. (While in general science, the "neopositivism", statistics/probability theory etc. are about prediction etc. yet they weren't widely accepted as the core of general intelligence but apparently rather as just something low level which was "mindless" etc. ) Early cyberneticians: Norbert Wiener, William Ross Ashby, Heinz von Foerster etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Technologiae https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B8

• My "Forever Young" program is not inspired by Bryan Johnson's "Blueprint", but it happened that there are similarities in some aspects, such as the macronutrients ratios, intermittent fasting etc., however it is rather opposite in others and the ratios happened to be such from the beginning when I started to record and measure (July 2022) while my "program", in the initial adjustments and without recording was at least since ~ May-June 2021. (...) I don't take "100 pills a day" and I haven't published data yet. A few notes: https://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2023/11/genius-by-verses-ai-intelligence-as.html

• S.Grossberg, G.Carpenter. See for example a Carpenter, G.A., Grossberg, S., & Reynolds, J.H. (1991), ARTMAP: Supervised real-time learning and classification of nonstationary data by a self-organizing neural network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Carpenter

( * We don't forget or ignore: Rao and Ballard, 1999 etc. or others which are cited by the authors of the other works and have received their credit. )

• Versions history: +... 22.12.2023: Intro/links/invite... 20.12.2023: Note about Lem "Summa Technologia" etc. in the intro and a footnote. 20.11.2023: minor edits in the intro.; 1.8.2023: + Andy Clark, Max Ramstead links ...