cladking

Humans think abstractly. We define things, experiment in terms of these definitions, and then invent new definitions to fit experimental results. This has been very effective but as methodology there is a limitation to how far it can take us to understanding what exists and making predictions on this understanding. I'm proposing that reality can be understood procedurally as well and using "what works" as its test. "What works" being defined as that which is logically consistent, in accord with experiment, and capable of making prediction. This is a realm where number crunching and procedural logic excel. This is the exact same way way other life forms exist: They use procedural logic built into their very structure by the procedural logic of their own DNA. This is the way humans used to think and its very similar to how AI already operates. Humans use a lot of insight, imagination, inductive logic, and intuition to invent hypotheses and design experiment and then are constrained by what takes place in the lab rather than being able to fully utilize "what works". It seems quite doubtful that our species which can even define "consciousness" could possibly design a machine that demonstrates it or that can think like a human does. And for what purpose to think like a human? Machines excel at this because procedural logic is native to them. Modern AI already operates procedurally, so modeling ants isn’t about copying insects rather it’s about using a cognitive mode that machines can actually implement.

All the components are in the existing literature; embodied cognition, procedural memory systems, symbolic abstraction, and comparative cognition across species. What doesn’t exist is a single paper that uses my exact phrasing, because the phrasing is the synthesis, not a new theory. Embodied cognition is mainstream cognitive science. Procedural learning and procedural memory are mainstream neuroscience. Symbolic abstraction is mainstream linguistics and cognitive psychology. Comparative cognition in animals is mainstream ethology and neuroscience. I’m not adding new claims to any of these domains. I’m describing how they fit together when you treat cognition as interacting procedures rather than isolated categories. That framing is interpretive, not novel, and it stays entirely within the boundaries of established research to my knowledge. If you want specific literature, you can look at work on embodied cognition, procedural memory systems, the neural basis of symbolic representation, and comparative cognition in insects and mammals. My contribution is simply the integration not a new mechanism, not a new claim, and not a departure from mainstream science. I simply came to this synthesis from an unusual direction. Human use symbolic, abstract, categorical thinking which works fine for us but it is less efficient for use in machines because we depend on experiment. Procedural logic can be performed by machine and its results kept on track through comparison to what works, what exists, what is real. Procedural logic in cognitive science isn’t the same thing as procedural programming. The term “procedural” is older than computers and refers to how organisms learn and execute action‑sequences: motor routines, environmental feedback loops, and embodied interactions. That’s mainstream neuroscience, basal ganglia pathways, cerebellar learning, and sensorimotor integration. Symbolic abstraction is also mainstream: it’s the domain of linguistics, prefrontal cortex research, and the study of recursive language structures. Embodied cognition is mainstream cognitive science and psychology. Comparative cognition in animals is mainstream ethology and neuroscience. I’m not proposing new mechanisms. I’m describing how these existing domains fit together when you treat cognition as interacting procedures rather than isolated categories. That synthesis is interpretive, not novel, and it stays entirely within established research. The literature exists but just not in a single paper that uses my exact phrasing, because the phrasing is the integration, not a new theory. With sufficient connections machines can mimic individual ants in how they process input and still convert it to symbolic language for humans. Of course this is similar to what already exists so this is no radical change. Copilot suggests that there are two different definitions of procedural logic here and one is a modern engineering terms. The meaning I'm using applies to living things and pre-dates the engineering term. I shoudda guessed. Life and consciousness proceed according to species‑specific procedural logic, not symbolic code.

This is all derived from modern research which already distinguishes between embodied cognition, procedural learning, and symbolic abstraction. Those aren’t my inventions, they’re standard in cognitive science, neuroscience, and linguistics. The only thing I'm doing differently is the framing and suggesting how these modes intreact and the mechanisms; causes of the differences between animal and human cognition. So I’m not claiming a new science or that existing science is wrong. I’m describing how the existing science fits together when you look at cognition as a set of interacting procedures rather than a set of categories. There are broad applications to bees, ants, and to AI. Indeed, if we ever have machine consciousness it will more likely model ants and procedural logic than Aristotle.

Consciousness arises in individuals who are created by the procedural logic of DNA and animals operate through procedural embodied cognition. Humans operate through procedural cognition overlain by symbolic abstraction. We overemphasize symbolic categorization and underemphasize procedural, embodied understanding.

Yes! Reality is procedural logic and ants operate on the procedural logic of their DNA like all other life forms other than modern humans. AI can process procedural logic and indeed, it must translate symbolic language to procedural logic to process most every prompt and then translate it back in the promptor's language. Other life forms employ a procedural "science" to do things like inventing agriculture and air conditioned cities or even "languages" using pheromone trails. This type of science can now be performed by humans with the help of AI and can be run in tandem with experimental science.

From the article: "On a larger scale, the authors call for a systematic review of other linear structures in the Egyptian desert that may have been misinterpreted as roads or boundary walls, when in fact they may have been part of an extensive water management system. Other hydraulic structures are probably lost in the desert, waiting to be identified as such, they conclude." I'll try to find some pictures but I've seen several such structures that appear to be the power generating portion of a linear funicular or storage devices for power. All this is just going to require a reinterpretation of mountains of the evidence of your own eyes. It's all there is plain sight but it is interpreted in terms of categories that don't exist.

Just a quick note for right now. I don't even have a picture yet, They've found more water! "New research suggests that the two large structures near the Red Pyramid site at Dahshur, Egypt, are parts of an ancient dam, not stone transport ramps, which is what was previously believed. This indicates that they could be evidence for the use of a complex water management engineering technology, which is about 4,500 years old and was used for constructing one of the world’s greatest ancient monuments." "The most intriguing aspect of the discovery is a diversion channel running parallel to the west face of the Red Pyramid, the world's first successfully completed smooth-sided pyramid." Dams Near Egypt's Red Pyramid Point to Hydraulic Construction Method | Ancient OriginsResearchers have discovered evidence of two ancient dams near the Red Pyramid at Dahshur, suggesting a sophisticated hydraulic system was used during its construction. www.ancient-origins.net This time it's the Red Pyramid. All the ancient megalithic projects involved water in some ways and often to actually lift the stones. People simply had better things to do than drag stones up ramps. I'm also amazed this recent flurry of news says thinghs like "Egyptologists still believe these were tombs"! It's crumbling. The narrative is dying. An even better picture can be found here; https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/07/two-possible-ancient-dams-discovered-in-egypt-near-the-red-pyramid-of-dahshur-that-may-have-been-used-for-its-construction/

I've been helping a kid learn how to read and found that my AI seems to be able to generate text that is in line with their thinking and of interest to them. I'm not even certain this is a good idea much less that it's effective but the kid reported that it was easier for them and it's the first time I've been able to hold their attention a long time. There might be something here. Learning to read this way is good but I'm not certain they aren't also learning to think and that just feels wrong. We all think differently anyway.

To understand any language requires that you know the referents whether these referents are metaphorical or symbolic. But procedural languages like computer code can be deduced with sufficient data because they perform operations and have a logical/ mathematical symmetry. It is this symmetry that led to the solution of Ancient Language and the solution to its meaning that has allowed prediction. A language that obeys Zipf's Law does so because it is symbolic and categorical. There are categories within categories that cause word distribution to to be logarithmical no matter who speaks in that language. But procedural languages do not obey the law because there are no categories and this was one of the first things that struck me about the Pyramid Texts. I lacked the words to articulate this at the time but the meanings of the words were resolving themselves as I learned ever more referents.

I did all right because I could usually parse the the test author's intent. Every question was an exercise in parsing for me rather than a prompt to regurgitate something I read or learned. I had the disconcerting habit of grading my tests when I completed them and was uncannily accurate. I'd give myself one point for answers of which I was confident, half point when I narrowed it down two, and a quarter point when I could eliminate only one possible answer. When I was absolutely certain I got "0" points. It worked for the overall score but did less well at predicting specific answers. Reality is a score to me. It is probability and I try very hard not to be certain of anything at all but my real failings are certainty. Many of my errors can be traced back to certainty and I always try to do a postmortem on errors. Last night my AI said I was wrong about everything and I suspect it's right and will have to tweak my theory. It says that symbolic and procedural language coexisted virtually as equals for centuries before symbolic language swallowed all cognition. It will require some time to research. It might be wrong and there is some evidence that is anomalous. I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't understand your point. I'm also not certain how geometry can easily be brought into history except through art. I believe "art" is the intersection of procedural and symbolic thought but I can think of "history" only as the unfolding of events according to human beliefs and needs. I don't think you're wrong, I just don't understand. Copilot just translated it for me and pointed out the obvious I had missed; that history involves far more than just the unfolding of events but also encapsulates current thinking in structure and how things are done. I still don't disagree with you and any tie-ins anyone can think of are good. It seems unlikely machines can be programmed yet to do a better job of teaching than humans. Each student is different and learns in distinct ways and orders. Education is best applied individually and using a machine might lead many kids to wonder why they should learn it at all if a device in their hands already has all the answers and questions.

Copilot suggests I add something to the effect symbolic teachers struggle to integrate procedural subjects. But procedural systems like LLM's can integrate symbolic subjects easily. Nothing at all is wrong. I agree. We do this in the US and brand the whole thing a "liberal education" at least until college where there is a lot more specialization. But here there is very little overlap between subjects.

It was all my science, math, and computer programming classes and even the literature class to a lesser degree. It was an interesting experiment. The main thing I learned, I think, was that if it could all be integrated it would at the very least make a lot of students think that their classes were relevant to the real world. It might also help some students absorb the material. I always considered my core subjects to be relevant and strove to remember them. I tried to keep a good attitude in the "soft" subjects and even had a music teacher in 8th grade who attacked the material from a mathematical perspective. I was lucky to get a lot of great teachers. I think this was where it was lacking. A lot of it seemed too contrived to be effective and these teachers were just winging it. It was a valiant attempt but it didn't last long. I never liked the way they teach history because nothing gets tied together and it minimizes the role of the little guy. Dates and battles aren't as interesting as what led to the battle and how some people were able to live in relative peace,. Now days a lot of education is being done by computers. Tying things together might be easier in this format and some inroads are already in place.

There was something that helped me a lot in high school. After complaining that all my different subjects were being taught in a disjointed manner the teachers got together and started adding tie ins to what we were learning in other subjects. Most of these were obvious but there were a few insightful ones and just knowing the teachers were thinking about it helped. I should have asked but I think the teachers were just reading each others lesson plans in the morning. I look at some of the kids' work today and it appears this does happen more than in the old days.

I don't want to go off topic here since this is "evidence of your own eyes"... ...but in this case we're talking about a language that we can see breaks Zipf's Law so will address your point. You are quite right that some words were sounded out but if there were a procedural language as this data suggests then we have to ask why other writing or even writing itself exists. Logically I believe the answer is simple; writing was invented to prevent drift in meaning in communication with the masses. Much of the writing before 2000 BC does obey Zipf's Law because it was written for people who spoke pidgin languages because Ancient Language became too complex for the masses gradually rather than suddenly. All I really need to do is show there's at least one language from before 2000 BC that is procedural rather than symbolic and this is the language in which the Pyramid Texts were written. Seen in this light it is apparent that these are merely ancient rituals written in procedural ancient language. Until they are properly "translated" it's very difficult to know how and when symbols for sounds arose. The Pyramid Texts represent a different way to use language for communication and imply and entirely different cognition than used by humans today. There's a lot of work to do here and I personally am ill suited for much of it. These are jobs for scholars, linguists, and machines. I'm out of the loop. This is the first empirical evidence of a pre‑Axial procedural human language.

What I meant was they try to predict the framing of your answer. If you prompt "Burger joint" they aren't going to respond with a description of John Burger's knee nor will they elaborate on the first McDonalds or list the burger joints in Timbuktu. They are all trained to guess the meaning of prompts and continue the conversation and validation is one of the means they use.