1. Fundamental science

This document proposes a fundamental — scientific — approach towards a profound understanding of natural intelligence and natural language based on the Laws of Nature.

1.1. Fundamental truth

There is only one truth in fundamental science: the way nature works.

Nature operates in a single, definite order, governed by natural laws. Those who investigate these laws and uncover how nature truly works will find their discoveries confirmed under controlled conditions — and, in time, applied to everyday life. In this way, taxpayers will have a Return on Investment in their funding of science.

1.2. Fundamental sciences are closing the circle

We perceive nothing other than natural phenomena obeying the Laws of Nature, and proceeding according to the Laws of Nature. And we perceive nothing other than natural phenomena closing the circle, as illustrated by the following example of electromagnetism.

The field of electromagnetism is a fundamental science because it closes the circle:

We can convert light to electricity, and we can convert electricity back to light;
We can convert motion — via magnetism — to electricity, and convert electricity — via magnetism — back to motion.

1.2.1. Cognitive science

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) — in a broad sense — is mainly studied from the perspective of behavioral/cognitive science, resulting in mimicry of behavior. However, mimicking the behavior of a hen (chicken) does not produce eggs. AI is therefore not naturally intelligent, but the result of human ingenuity.

AI may deliver useful engineered techniques. But humans are the only intelligent actor in AI.

1.2.1.1. AI / NLP is unable to close the circle

As a consequence of being investigated from the perspective of cognitive science, the field of AI / NLP is unable to close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language:
• From readable sentences,
• through natural logic (natural intelligence),
• with the result expressed in readable — word-by-word constructed — sentences again.

Illustrated by an example:

_____________________________

In primary school, we all learned a similar sum:

Given: “John has 3 apples.”
Given: “Peter has 4 apples.”
Logical conclusion: “Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

The school teacher then wrote:

3 apples + 4 apples = 7 apples

However, the result of the sum — “7 apples” — lacks a reference to “John and Peter”. So, the result of this sum is insufficient to construct the following readable sentence:

“Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

Hopefully, mathematicians will come to the rescue, by closing the circle scientifically:

J = 3
P = 4
J + P = 7

Unfortunately, the mathematical result “J + P = 7” lacks a reference to “apples”. So, also the result of this algebra is insufficient to construct a readable sentence. It would require an engineered solution to come to:

“Together, John and Peter have 7 apples.”

_____________________________

This is just one example of my scientific challenge. A generic solution to this particular example is described in Block 3.

It may seem like Large Language Models (LLM) can solve reasoning problems. However, LLMs only have a limited, engineered reasoning capability. When reasoning problems are combined, LLMs will start to lose context.

Besides that, AI / NLP is lacking self-organising properties, while our brains do not need help of experts to get their knowledge organised.

1.2.2. Fundamental science investigates Logic and Laws of Nature

Intelligence and language are natural phenomena. To close the circle on natural intelligence and natural language, we need to investigate these natural phenomena from the perspective of fundamental science — also known as Basic Research — which investigates Logic and Laws of Nature.

To illustrate the difference with cognitive science:

Fundamental science versus cognitive science

1.3. Pitfalls

I noticed a few cases of misunderstanding, which will be addressed in the following paragraphs.

1.3.1. Self-organisation (misunderstood)

Self-organisation is often misunderstood. The following ‘scientific’ paper states:

“Self-organization refers to a broad range of pattern-formation processes in both physical and biological systems”.

However, in this paper, no distinction is made between a static ‘organisation’ — which is limited to pattern formation — and a dynamic organisation, which requires natural intelligence.

Distinction:

Natural pattern formation — like fractals and the formation of snowflakes — is a static process, based on rules (fractals) or the laws of nature (the formation of snowflakes);
Swarming of birds is a dynamic, temporary process, based on the bird’s instinct. Instinct is an innate mechanism of survival. In case of no danger, swarming is practiced as an emergency drill, while it also improves bonding;
Self-organisation is a dynamic, continuous process. It is a result of natural intelligence;
Any other organisation — like a company or a pack of wolves — is a dynamic, continuous process of multiple intelligent actors.

So, (self-)organisation is a result of natural intelligence rather than being the origin.

1.3.2. Neurons, intelligence, and learning

A lot of scientists believe that intelligence evolved in brains over a long period of time. But I know: neurons are not essential to intelligence, in the same way as feathers and flapping wings are not essential to aviation.

Learning requires natural intelligence. However, scientists have no clue what natural intelligence is. So-called Machine Learning is therefore unable to learn.

My father taught me: “Don't become a monkey who is trained to perform a trick”. Artificial neural networks are trained to perform a trick. As a consequence, they are limited to pattern recognition and pattern generation.

1.3.3. Believing in overwhelming evidence… (Santa Claus)

Some people claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for (any variant of) the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent. However, by being selective — by ignoring disconfirming facts — one can also claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for Santa Claus too:

His address is known: North Pole 1;
advertisements will forecast his coming;
then he appears everywhere at once. So, one can meet him in person;
if one posts/mails/texts/apps a message, one will get a response;
and presents are given.

But we all know: Santa Claus is just a make-believe. In the same way, the “overwhelming evidence” for (any variant of) the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is just selective— ignoring disconfirming facts — and is therefore unscientific.

A make-believe starts by ignoring disconfirming facts. And a religion starts when this make-believe is actively spread. Philosophical naturalists are actively spreading their religion.

1.3.4. Boundaries of evolution

We perceive nothing other than boundaries of evolution — expressed in taxonomic families:

Viruses only produce viruses;
Bacteria only produce bacteria;
Fungi only produce fungi;
Plants only produce plants;
Insects only produce insects;
Fish only produce fish;
Birds only produce birds;
Monkeys only produce monkeys;
And humans sometimes produce pigs.

1.3.5. Science-washing

Creationists argue that as long as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of large taxonomic families cannot be replicated, these questions about origins fall within the realm of belief.

However, philosophical naturalists present their beliefs regarding the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of large taxonomic families as scientific, even though they cannot replicate these beliefs in a controlled environment, even at scale.

Due to this science-washing, philosophical naturalists cannot replicate natural intelligence, as their beliefs fundamentally conflict with the way nature — natural intelligence — works.

1.3.6. Hiding behind historical science

According to philosophical naturalism, natural laws and natural forces are sufficient to explain the emergence of the universe, the emergence of life, the emergence of taxonomic families, the emergence of (natural) intelligence, and the emergence of human language, while there is no need for any involvement of intelligent or supernatural entities.

However, when asked to reproduce the universe, life, taxonomic families, (natural) intelligence, or the human language, under controlled conditions — at scale if required — believers of philosophical naturalism tend to hide behind the term historical science by placing their hypotheses beyond the reach of empirical research in the hope to protect these hypotheses from falsification.

In this way, a paradox is created:

Either, natural laws and natural forces are sufficient to explain the emergence of the universe, the emergence of life, the emergence of taxonomic families, the emergence of (natural) intelligence, and the emergence of the human language. In that case their emergence can be replicated by the natural laws and natural forces that describe them;

Or, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of taxonomic families, the origin of (natural) intelligence, and the origin of the human language are claimed to be historical, investigated by historical science. In that case, these natural phenomena could be created by God, by which creation by God should be included in this historical, scientific research, regardless of whether philosophical naturalism is thereby refuted.

In fact, philosophical naturalism undermines itself, by replacing the involvement of an intelligent, supernatural entity (God) with hypotheses that are equally unfalsifiable.

1.3.7. Limitations of philosophical naturalism

Philosophical naturalism posits that everything can be explained through natural laws and natural forces, thus without any influence of the supernatural.

Philosophical naturalism is designed to provide ex post explanations — explaining afterwards — but not to discover or utilize natural phenomena. So, suppose the airplane had not yet been invented; then philosophical naturalism — due to its explanatory nature — would not be able to utilize the Laws of Nature that govern flight.

Discovering, utilizing, and applying natural phenomena requires an approach of discovery and application. For centuries, such a scientific approach was successful. But in the 19th century, this successful approach was replaced in certain disciplines by philosophical naturalism.

But due to the exploratory nature of humankind, this limitation of philosophical naturalism will eventually be recognized. It may turn out that the explanations of philosophical naturalism are fundamentally at odds with new discoveries, such as the understanding what natural intelligence actually is.

1.3.8. Is Christianity anti-science?

Some people believe that Christianity is anti-science, or anti-scientific. However, for centuries, Christian scientists were leading in fundamental science. They sincerely observed the way nature — God's creation — works. As a result, their findings could be reproduced under controlled conditions, after which their findings could be applied to daily life, in fields like:

in microbiology, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek,
in chemistry, Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier,
in physics, Isaac Newton, James Prescott Joule, and Arthur Compton,
in electromagnetism, Alessandro Volta, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell,
in mathematics, Gottfried Leibniz, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, Blaise Pascal, and Kurt Gödel,
in health care, Joseph Lister — who is called the “father of modern surgery”,
in genetics, Gregor Mendel — who is called the “father of modern genetics”, and Ronald Fisher
Charles Babbage — who is called the “father of the computer”,
George Boole — who is called the “father of the digital age” or the “father of binary logic”,
Galileo Galilei — who is called the “father of observational astronomy, modern-era classical physics, the scientific method, and modern science”,
and Johannes Kepler — who is called “one of the founders and fathers of modern astronomy, the scientific method, natural and modern science”,

By replicating and applying their findings, these Christian scientists provided a Return on Investment to taxpayers, which we still benefit from today. Their approach of using fundamental science might be useful to investigate natural intelligence and natural language too.

1.3.9. Fundamental choice: apes or Adam and Eve?

Any variant of the Evolutionary hypothesis of Common Descent is fundamentally at odds with Christian beliefs. So, only one of both belief systems can be true:

If man shares a common ancestor with the ape, Adam and Eve never existed;
If Adam and Eve never existed, the Fall of man — high treason against God — never happened;
If the Fall of man never happened, the redemption through Jesus is meaningless;
If redemption through Jesus is meaningless, Christianity is nothing but an empty religion.

So everyone has to make a choice: a common ancestor with the ape, or creation by God.