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.

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Reality is procedural logic and ants operate on the procedural logic of their DNA like all other life forms other than modern humans.

Many if not most animals are able to learn and increasingly we have identified examples of abstract thinking and certainly of cognition. Humans are not unique in that regard and animal behaviour is not determined by DNA (or at least not more than in humans).

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Many if not most animals are able to learn and increasingly we have identified examples of abstract thinking and certainly of cognition. Humans are not unique in that regard and animal behaviour is not determined by DNA (or at least not more than in humans).

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.

Edited Sunday at 11:54 AM4 days by cladking

3 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

This can't be correct, can it? there are plenty of things that have DNA which few people would argue are conscious, mushrooms and bacteria come to mind. Also, isn't the last part one of the strengths of humans? It seems to me, overcominging the programmed past and imagining something new based on lived experience is what has gotten us to where we are.

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

This can't be correct, can it? there are plenty of things that have DNA which few people would argue are conscious, mushrooms and bacteria come to mind. Also, isn't the last part one of the strengths of humans? It seems to me, overcominging the programmed past and imagining something new based on lived experience is what has gotten us to where we are.

People argue a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean that it’s widely accepted. I’d like to see the definition of conscious that’s being applied, to ensure it hasn’t been so watered down that almost anything fits.

6 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

IIRC this is your own personal take on the topic, rather than mainstream science. If so, it has no place here.

If it’s mainstream, you should be able to provide links to the topic

On 9/20/2026 at 1:20 PM, swansont said:

IIRC this is your own personal take on the topic, rather than mainstream science. If so, it has no place here.

If it’s mainstream, you should be able to provide links to the topic

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.

3 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

That’s just it, though - are these “suggestions” mainstream science? Your phrasing suggests that they aren’t

3 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

If how it fits together is not new then point to it in the existing literature

6 hours ago, cladking said:

Indeed, if we ever have machine consciousness it will more likely model ants and procedural logic than Aristotle.

Why would modeling ants be more useful than modeling high-functioning humans?

Procedural logic is what unsentient machines do now.... it's just a step-by-step method of problem-solving or coding that tells a computer precisely how to accomplish a task through an ordered sequence of instructions. Been there, done that, going back to Ada Lovelace and Chuck Babbage.

On 9/22/2026 at 11:31 AM, swansont said:

That’s just it, though - are these “suggestions” mainstream science? Your phrasing suggests that they aren’t

If how it fits together is not new then point to it in the existing literature

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.

On 9/22/2026 at 2:47 PM, TheVat said:

Why would modeling ants be more useful than modeling high-functioning humans?

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.

On 9/22/2026 at 2:47 PM, TheVat said:

Procedural logic is what unsentient machines do now.... it's just a step-by-step method of problem-solving or coding that tells a computer precisely how to accomplish a task through an ordered sequence of instructions. Been there, done that, going back to Ada Lovelace and Chuck Babbage.

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.

4 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

And it’s your interpretation, not that of the mainstream. That’s why this is now in its own thread.

4 hours ago, cladking said:

Copilot suggests

Please leave the contributions of ai out of it, per the rules.