Antimatter Hypothesis: Cash-Landrum Incident

In another celebrated close encounter case, Betty Cash, Vicki Landrum, and Vicki’s grandson Colby encountered an antimatter matter object (AMMO) that they approximated to rival the size of the Dayton, Texas water tower. The object had a dull silver color with a diamond gem shape, rounded top and sides, but truncated bottom. This describes the distortion of perspective when looking up at a large overhead sphere. Ever notice how small children draw pictures of adults with small heads?

The object had blue lights around the middle, and when it got close to the ground, red orange ‘flames’ shot out in a cone shaped area between the object and the ground. Electrons from the ground ionized the air on a path to the object. The closet point being the bottom of the object created a cone like appearance.

The spectral emission lines of nitrogen are strong in red, yellow, green, and blue. Hydrogen has strong spectral lines in red and cyan, perhaps liberated in proton antiproton annihilations. The AMMO generated a tremendous amount of heat, which made the body of their automobile hot to the touch. Later, the witnesses all experienced symptoms of radiation poisoning, which is consistent with ionizing gamma radiation produced by matter-antimatter annihilations. It felt like sunburn, only the symptoms were far worse including blistering skin, fever, and hair loss.


So is AMMO a natural phenomenon or an interstellar tourist? What’s our verdict? Well, first and foremost AMMO is a risk to human health. That much is certain, and any manufactured vehicle that produces gamma radiation and atmospheric ionization is a technically incompetent design, which rules out intelligence. Therefore AMMO must be natural in origin, albeit rarely observed, and I advise everyone to stay clear for health reasons.

But what causes the reflective bubble? I have my suspicions about a natural cause, but common phenomena cannot explain it. Matter in a matter environment doesn’t look this way, and by analogy we can assume that antimatter in an antimatter environment doesn’t look this way either. A metallic surface is the closest approximation. Consider a mirror or a mylar balloon or mercury.

What causes a mirrored surface? For any surface, atoms absorb and emit light. An object is composed of atoms, where the color we see is emitted photons of light. An apple emits red wavelengths. An orange emits orange wavelengths. A banana absorbs all visible wavelengths except yellow that it emits. Fruits don’t glow on their own, but selectively emit photons that impinge on them. A mirror reflects all visible wavelengths, but absorbs none. So what’s the atomic difference between a fruit and a mirror?

We know that polished metal is reflective, and conducts electricity. Fruit does not conduct electricity as well. We also know that the spectrum produced by atoms is due to the atomic orbitals of electrons electrostatically bound to atomic nuclei. Electric current is the movement of weakly bound electrons from atom to atom. So if electrons in covalent bonds are selective in the wavelengths of light they absorb and emit, then donor electrons, like the valence electron of metals, are indiscriminate in the wavelengths of light they absorb and reradiate, which causes a mirrored surface.

Therefore the mirrored bubble around AMMO is an assemblage of electrons not bound to any atoms. In this case, matter and antimatter act together and produce an uncommon experience. That’s why the reflective bubble looks alien. The electrons are attracted to the antimatter by one or more forces, but electrostatically repel each other. What forces form the bubble?

Force on an electron at 1 meter (Newtons)
Electrostatic	Gravitation	Gravitation
1 proton	1 kg mass	10,000 kg mass
2.31×10-28	6.08×10-41	6.08×10-37

Even for a chunk of matter larger than an elephant, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton overwhelms the gravitational force. A kilogram is over two pounds. Ten thousand kilograms is about eleven tons. So the reflective bubble around antimatter must be governed by electrostatic forces. Antiprotons of antimatter have negative charge, and positrons have positive charge. So a chunk of antimatter has a positive layer of positrons on its surface and electrons form a geodesic bubble of balancing electrostatic forces around the antimatter, where electrons are attracted to positrons and electrons repel each other. When the balance is disturbed, then the bubble pops, but it’s natural for the bubble to reform again.

The witnesses also reported seeing an escort of helicopters arrive after about twenty minutes, and identified some of the twenty-three helicopters they counted as the tandem-rotor Boeing Chinook variety. The incident took place in the vicinity of Houston, Texas on 29 December 1980, between Christmas and New Years. The closest vacuum chamber large enough to contain an object that big is located at Johnson Space Center, conveniently or coincidentally located outside Houston also. You may recall that it was used as a setting in the movie Armageddon.

NASA Headquarters - GReatest Images of NASA (NASA-HQ-GRIN)

Secrecy

If our government has captured antimatter, then in the mind of some authorities a very good reason must exist for keeping that information secret. Tighter secrecy surrounds antigravity research today than the Manhattan project, which constructed the first atom bomb during World War II. Consider what happened with atomic research. We developed uranium fission. We tested it. We used it in war. We developed nuclear bombs, a hydrogen fusion chain reaction triggered by a plutonium fission chain reaction. And now nations all over the world have nukes, including enemy states. How safe do we feel now? Kind of defeats the purpose. Doesn’t it?

In an adversarial world, how would we feel if enemy states developed antigravity vehicles? Not a pleasant thought. But secrecy stifles scientific progress. Open inquiry is an absolute necessity for the scientific method to operate. The goals of national security and the goals of science are at odds. However, truth transcends context. Nobody needs government permission to prove the antimatter hypothesis or any other hypothesis. Other avenues of investigation exist, and that is typically the case.

Truth is fruit born of conscientious endeavors, but the nature of scientific, peer review publications is to abstain from efforts to coordinate thinking outside the orthodox. Peer review publications are geared toward reductionism, working out the details of existing theories, not airing promising new hypotheses. The greatest obstacle stifling progress, in all disciplines, is an innate defect within reductionism and within deduction: thinking inside the mainstream, and secrecy thrives on the complacency of reductionism.

Antimatter Hypothesis: Travis Walton

Sources:

Wikipedia

Travis Walton’s Home Page

UFO Casebook

MUFON

The case of Travis Walton was made into the movie “Fire in the Sky.” Walton was one of seven witnesses in a forest setting. Walton approached alone beneath a hovering, glowing, metallic object that both reflected and gave off light, a description which is consistent with antigravity antimatter surrounded by a reflective electron±positron bubble and ionizing aurora effects.

Gamma radiation from matter-antimatter annihilations is not directly visible to the human eye, but it is ionizing radiation, which strips electrons from atoms and molecules that causes localized aurora effects. When Walton rose up from a crouched position to turn and leave, he felt an electric shock and became unconscious. His companions described an energy beam that hit Walton and lit up the whole area, lifted him a foot into the air, and knocked him back about ten feet, where he fell crumpled to the ground. His companions thought Walton was dead and drove away in panic. Up to this point all witnesses corroborate each other.

Annihilated electrons in air leave behind positive ions of atmospheric molecules. Electrons from the ground took the path of least resistance to neutralize the electric charge potential, directly through Walton’s body. Walton was caught in a path of lightning. The lightning momentarily paralyzed him and disrupted his ability to store long term memory for days. A search party failed to find Walton, however in his disturbed mental state he probably avoided the search party. After recovering his mental faculties he would have no way of recalling what happened during this gap in his memory, which finally normalized five days later and thirty miles away.

The book and the movie about Walton’s lost time embellish it as an extraterrestrial encounter. An egg shaped AMMO will orient itself with the large end on top. Looking at the electron±positron bubble will reflect a distorted image of the observer and give the impression of a small nose, mouth, and ears, with a hairless large domed head. The staring eyes come from the fact that when Walton blinks he cannot see his own reflection do the same. I am Caucasian as is Walton. In looking at the back of a soup spoon, my eye sockets and eyebrows blend into two dark pits. The apparent color of these AMMO is grey. All this is consistent with the description of the Greys, a race of extraterrestrials.

Walton cites orange as the color of the outfits worn by the three Greys surrounding him, when he regained consciousness. The clothes could have been Walton’s own reflection, or a mixture of the primary colors of auroras: red and green. Red and green in equal proportions makes yellow, but with more red it makes orange. Walton picked up something, perhaps a branch, and swung it at the Greys.

The AMMO must have fragmented as annihilations progressed, since Walton saw three objects that he anthropomorphized, but the Greys never communicated with him. The three objects left him or disappeared via annihilations. The tall human like beings could have been his reflection is a larger AMMO, or the searchers looking for him. A puncture found in Walton’s arm could have been caused by a stray grain of antimatter. The rest of the extraterrestrial encounter is the mind of Walton filling in the blanks and trying to make sense of what happened to him, while being predisposed to the idea of flying saucers. His brain was scrambled by the electrostatic discharge, electromagnetic fields, and gamma radiation of the AMMO.

Walton did have a close encounter with extraterrestrials; however the extraterrestrials were inanimate antimatter meteors. Encounters of this sort tell us more about the subject, the observer, than the object. However, more information helps piece together the properties of AMMO from all the different accounts. From Walton’s description we get a glimpse into what he imagined the inside of a flying saucer would look like, just as Daniel W. Fry, Antonio Villas Boas, and Betty Hill gave us a glimpse into their imaginations. A Lie Detector could never detect that these confabulations are false memories struggling to reconcile unusual experiences with everyday reality.

Antimatter Hypothesis: NASA STS-37

Courtesy National Space Society. Space Shuttle Flight 39 (STS-37), narrated by the astronauts. Launch: April 5, 1991. Crew: Steven R. Nagel, Kenneth D. Cameron, Jerry L. Ross, Jay Apt, Linda M. Godwin.

Here's a NASA video from space shuttle mission STS-37. This video was recorded on a space shuttle mission that launched 5 April 1991. The land below is the southwest coast of South America. The Pacific ocean and Chili are on the near side, with Argentina and the Atlantic ocean on the far side.


NASA STS-37@16:39 to 16:58When the orb appears in frame one it reflects land, the rust color. It must be in a higher orbit to line up the reflections right. In a lower orbit it would reflect the black of space above. At center frame in frame two the orb reverses direction, consistent with antigravity and not much else. In frame three the orb reflects both land and sea below. Then it stops reflecting land in frame four. The scene ends with the co-orbiting orb maintaining its position in the frame while the Earth continues to pass by below in frame five, which means that it adapted to the same orbital velocity as the space shuttle. This video is actually three times normal speed, so twenty seconds of play time is more than a minute of real time. One thing we know for sure, the orb reflects its surroundings but it doesn’t appear to glow. At least not in the visual spectrum in the vacuum of space. So what is the surface made of? Would it act the same way in Earth’s atmosphere?

Antimatter Hypothesis: NASA STS-51A

Courtesy National Space Society. Space Shuttle Flight 14 (STS-51A), narrated by the astronauts. Launch: November 8, 1984. Crew: Frederick Hauck, David Walker, Joseph Allen, Anna Fisher, Dale Gardner

Here's a NASA video from space shuttle mission STS-51A. This video was recorded on a space shuttle mission that launched 8 November 1984. A reflective orb appears for about three seconds during an extended scene of an astronaut EVA to a satellite.


NASA STS-51A@10:36 to 10:38
The nose of the space shuttle is reflected in the satellite, and the astronaut is in the shadow of the space shuttle. The tip of the shuttle bay robotic arm is parked at lower right. The orb first appears in frame one and reflects the black of space with small highlights. As the orb descends the highlights grow in size. In frame two the orb reflects the sun above, and the satellite is reflected on the lower left. When the orb lines up with the horizon it reflects the sun above and the clouds below in frame three. Then the orb skirts the horizon to the right, which is non ballistic motion, but consistent with antigravity repelled by the satellite and the space shuttle. At one point in frame four the reflective surface appears to pop like a bubble. But then the reflective bubble reforms again in frame five on its way to exiting the frame to the right. How can we explain this? Is this a natural phenomenon or an interstellar tourist? Three seconds isn’t much to go on.

Antimatter Hypothesis: NASA STS-80

Here's a NASA video from space shuttle mission STS-80. You need to click on it twice to view it at YouTube. This video was recorded on a space shuttle mission that launched 19 November 1996. Earth is in the background. The flashes are lightning. A luminous object enters from the lower right hand corner, decelerates, hovers above cloud level, and then becomes geostationary. This object appears to obey hypothetical laws of antigravity.

Be advised that the space shuttle was designed with nineteen seventies technology. So the black and white video camera has a video tube, not a CCD chip like modern cameras. The black center to lightning is an artifact of video tubes when intense saturation occurs over an extended area of the image. Notice that the object takes on a dark center when it decelerates completely.

This is the same characteristic video tube artifact as lightning, which means that the object became brighter when it halted its downward momentum. That’s a clue, but a clue to what? When a meteor streaks across the sky it leaves a trail, as it disintegrates. Notice that this object leaves no trail, but it is bright. Something must cause that brightness. Either reflection of the sun, or an innate capacity to generate electromagnetic radiation. The operational altitude of the space shuttle was about 350 kilometers for this mission. Meteors burn up between fifty and eighty-five kilometers above the Earth's surface. This object is farther away than the distance from Seattle to Portland and is either very bright or very big. Maybe both. Maybe not. Size is inconclusive, like the luminosity of stars at night.

Earth’s edge becomes obvious toward the end of the video. A narrow band lies in night, which means the sun could be reflecting off the object. Are natural objects highly reflective? The Moon is.

A chemical reaction between the object and Earth’s atmosphere might cause an increase in brightness, but that should leave a trail. Reflective objects can be bright without leaving trails. Maybe the trail exists, but any evidence appears outside the visible spectrum. That would make antimatter an intriguing possibility.


Here is the same footage converted to a negative image, so the object appears black instead of white.

E = mc²

The equivalence of mass and energy is described by Einstein’s famous equation: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Experiments with particle accelerators confirm that the conversion of energy into substance always produces a pair of matter-antimatter particles. The Milky Way is formed out of matter; so where is all the antimatter hiding? The particle and antiparticle of pair production exhibit opposite properties of electric charge, and magnetic moment. Maybe particles of matter and antimatter exhibit opposite properties of gravitation too.

Antimatter with antigravity properties might explain this phenomenon, but be cautioned that explaining a phenomenon may or may not be the same thing as causing it. Antigravity explains deceleration in Earth’s gravity for one, and antimatter explains increased brightness in Earth’s atmosphere for another. Matter and antimatter in contact annihilate each other and produce gamma rays. Gamma rays are outside the visual spectrum and outside the range of the space shuttle video camera, but gamma rays are ionizing radiation. That means gamma rays strip electrons from atoms and molecules. The result is a localized aurora effect around the object.

Whereas a normal meteor quickly disintegrates, antimatter in Earth’s atmosphere would transform into primary gamma radiation, and secondary ionization effects. The first annihilations occur between electrons and their antiparticle, positrons, leaving positive ions in Earth’s atmosphere. Electron movement to neutralize this initial imbalance of electric charge might cause lightning, which we observe.

In Earth’s atmosphere, matter-antimatter annihilations would dissolve antimatter as if by acid. Imagine an Alka-Seltzer tablet being dropped into a glass of water. The tablet fizzed away, and slowly dissolved from the outside in. The rate of annihilation depends on the density of the antimatter and atmospheric pressure. A chunk of asteroid would dissolve slow and steady, whereas a chunk of comet would dissolve faster but exhibit erratic movements due to out gassing, a motion suggestive of the flight characteristics described by reports of unidentified flying objects. In addition, no debris remains at crash sites, which explains another bugaboo. A melting snowball comet would produce antigravity droplets and vapor. Air fuel mixture is a factor in the rate of combustion. Ball lightning, which exhibits antigravity properties, is consistent with a small antimatter comet.


Another object appears and travels to the upper left of the image, parallel to the path of the original object. Either this new object is coming up out of the clouds or down from above. Recall that the first object decelerated and hovered before acquiring the rotation of the Earth. Antimatter on a collision course with the Earth hitting the atmosphere could explain all of these observations. When the object first appears there is a bloom of light, and the object decelerates as it moves. Any other explanation needs to account for both those facts, and the distance to the object is hundreds of kilometers.

Antimatter Hypothesis: Three Fundamental Forces

Subatomic Particles

Let's examine the three elementary subatomic particles: electron, neutron, and proton. They’re organized like this:

Subatomic Particle Charge
–	0	+
electron	neutron	proton

Electrostatic Force

Let’s consider the electrostatic force first. If we take two helium balloons tethered so that they're touching, and add a static electric charge, then the balloons will move apart. Electric charge behaves like this:

	Electric Charge
	–	+
–	Repel	Attract
+	Attract	Repel

Electric charge exhibits two states, positive and negative, where opposites attract and like repels like. Why doesn’t the electron simply crash into the proton in the hydrogen atom? The electron is attracted to the proton.

Magnetic Force

Magnetism behaves like this:

	Magnetism
	N	S
N	Repel	Attract
S	Attract	Repel

If we expose a compass to a magnet, then the magnet interferes with the compass needle. Magnetism exhibits two states, a north pole and a south pole, where opposites attract and like repels like.

Let’s combine the two forces: electric charge and magnetism. If we take a non-magnetic iron rod and touch it to a pile of iron pieces, then nothing sticks. However, if we wind a copper wire around the iron rod, attach the two ends of the copper wire to the terminals of a dry cell battery and touched the rod to the pile of iron pieces then some pieces will stick. This is an electromagnet.

Gravitational Force

If we hold an iron rod at arms length and let go, then it drops and hits the floor, and that would demonstrate gravity. Aristotle’s view of gravity is different from ours today. Aristotle observed that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. If we hold an apple and a feather at arms length, and let go of both at the same time, then the apple hits the floor first. Aristotle's notion of gravity is confirmed.

But Galileo described a thought experiment where he dropped two objects from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and they hit the ground at the same time, or so he claimed, and that’s how we think of gravity today. All objects fall at the same rate.

A modern demonstration of gravity is a sealed glass cylinder containing a penny and a postage stamp sized scrap. If we turn the cylinder end over end, then the penny falls to the bottom end faster than the fluttering scrap. Now a vacuum pump is attached to remove the air through a tube connecting the pump to the cylinder. Turn on the pump and continue to flip the cylinder end over end. The scrap will drop faster and faster each time, until it equals the speed of the penny.

Whether either of them knew it or not, Aristotle included air resistance in his explanation, whereas Galileo did not. Then Newton combined the idea that gravity acted on a falling apple in the same way that Earth’s gravity acted on the Moon.

Force Comparison

Let’s try to get a handle on the relative strength of these forces, shall we? An electromagnet can pick up iron pieces, which means that magnetism is a stronger force than gravity. We can rub an air filled balloon to give it a static charge and stick it to the ceiling, which means that electric charge is a stronger force than gravity. But how much stronger? Here's a table comparing electrostatic and gravitational forces of subatomic particles.

Force (N) at Bohr radius (53×10-12 meters)
Particles	Electrostatic	Gravitational
Proton-proton	-8.213162×10-8	6.647344×10-44
Neutron-neutron	0.0	6.665682×10-44
Electron-electron	-8.213162×10-8	1.971653×10-50
Proton-electron	8.213162×10-8	3.620256×10-47

This table shows the force in Newtons between subatomic particles at the Bohr radius. The Bohr radius is fifty-three picometers. A picometer is ten to the minus twelve meters. A positive exponent means pad zeros to the right of the number, and a negative exponent means pad zeros to the left of the number. So minus eight means shift the decimal point left eight places.

For the proton-proton forces, the gravitational force has thirty-six more zeros than the electrostatic force. Forty-four minus eight is thirty-six. Thirty-six is four times nine, and nine zeros is a billion. So thirty-six zeros is four billions multiplied together. A billion times a billion times a billion times a billion. That’s a lot of zeros, and that’s a good thing, because the electrostatic force is what holds atoms and molecules together. If the gravitational force was stronger than the electrostatic force, then we’d all be squashed flat on a solid packed planet. No air. No liquid. No us.

The proton-proton electrostatic force in the first column is the negative of the proton-electron electrostatic force in the last column. Protons repel protons, and electrons repel electrons, but protons attract electrons. The gravitational force between a proton and an electron is much weaker than between two protons.

So why do we imagine that gravity is so strong? Well, notice that neutrons possess some gravitational force, but no electrostatic force. The electric charge of electrons and protons neutralize each other at atomic scales so in our experience gravitational forces appear to matter more at our level of consciousness. However, at the atomic level electrostatic forces dominate, that is except for neutrons.

Antigravity Hypothesis

Gravitation behaves like this:

	Gravitation
	↑	↓
↑	?	?
↓	?	Attract

What would antigravity look like?

An “electrically generated point of force” bubble appeared in scenes from ‘Explorers’. I animated the dream scenes for this movie.


A hovering mirrored spacecraft zooms around in scenes from ‘Flight of the Navigator’. I wrote the reflection map code for the spaceship, and Carl Frederick created the reflection maps. The Golden Gate Bridge scene was our test scene.

Electric charge exhibits symmetry. Magnetic poles exhibit symmetry. Why not gravity? Well, let’s assume that gravity does exhibit symmetry and see how far that takes us. The answers might teach us something about the true nature of gravity that doesn’t appear in any textbooks.

Here's what happens if we fill in the question mark fields in the gravitation table:

	Gravitation
	↑	↓
↑	Attract	Repel
↓	Repel	Attract

Normal gravity is the down arrow, and antigravity is the up arrow. Like gravitational forces attract, but opposite gravitational forces repel, at least hypothetically. But gravitational anomalies are something that we don’t witness everyday. Why don’t we observe antigravity, even within an entire lifetime? What would antigravity look like anyway?


Would antigravity act like electrostatic repulsion? Here's an AP Physics class video demonstrating a hair raising experiment with a Van de Graaff generator.


Or would antigravity act like magnetic levitation? Here's a product video from Levitation Arts.

Einstein discovered the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. An entirely antigravity planet, solar system, and galaxy would behave indistinguishable from our own, since like gravitational forces attract, but if a meteor with antigravity entered Earth’s vicinity how would it act? When a meteor with normal gravity enters the Earth’s atmosphere it accelerates and burns up due to friction. Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, then antigravity and deceleration must be equivalent in a normal gravitational field. Mix normal gravity and antigravity and our expectations go out the window. A meteor with antigravity entering Earth’s atmosphere would decelerate, and barring a collision with anything solid it would stop and hover. Sound like any behavior you've ever heard of?

Machine Translation: Context

In a scene from the feature film “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home” Scotty talks to a computer without realizing that the user interface of the Macintosh was limited to a keyboard and a mouse. “How quaint” indeed.

John Searle's Chinese Room argument takes the Turing Test one deliberate step into obfuscation, by wrapping the original test for artificial intelligence between two layers of Machine Translation.

So what does it take to produce Machine Translation (MT)? Here is a word out of context, “wind.” What is the definition of the word? Is it a breeze, sounding like the word win? Or is a turning motion, sounding like the word wine? There is no way to tell because the word lacks context. So MT must figure out context to identify the correct definition of words, which is at the foundation of meaning.

Consider the word “right.” If we look at a dictionary, then we'll notice many different meanings for the word “right”. As humans we figure out which is the correct meaning by looking at the surrounding words, by establishing a context. This is my proposed solution for Machine Translation. If MT becomes successful, then the Chinese Room argument reverts back to the Turing Test, and the misdirection into Chinese is eliminated exposing the Chinese Room argument for a ploy to confuse the issue of artificial intelligence, rather than illuminate it.

Chinese Room: McDonald's Rebuttal

We considered a Chinese restaurant, and a Mexican restaurant. How about an American restaurant? How about McDonald’s? This is not my area of expertise, so let me tag team with Searle, and let me cook at McDonald’s. In principle only. If you eat at McDonald’s you probably know more about the customer experience than I ever will, but suppose I go to work in the kitchen. Let’s suppose my first job is making french fries. So I learn everything about keeping the oil at the correct temperature, the amount of potatoes in a batch, the length of time it takes, the amount of salt I apply, and the different sized packages. Maybe I also learn which customer orders come with fries, and of what size.

Next I get promoted to the grill. If I’m Searle, which I’m not, I forget everything I learned about fries. At the end Searle understands nothing. But I’m going to understand something. How much we’ll have to see. So at the grill I have more options. We have hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and the double decker Big Mac. So I learn more specifically what customer orders come with what grill options.

Eventually I get promoted all the way up to taking customer orders, where I really learn what food items go with which customer orders. That includes soft drinks, milkshakes, and all the rest. At this point let’s evaluate how much I understand. Do I understand everything from the inside? Yes. But I don’t understand anything from the outside. I don’t understand the customer experience. I don’t know how the food tastes. I can only guess based upon analogies from food I’ve eaten elsewhere, but an artificial intelligence doesn’t even have that much to fall back on.

So let’s try real hard to understand what John Searle can claim about artificial intelligence? The deaf chef qualification not only applies to any man in the Chinese Room, but it also applies to any artificial intelligence in the room. Bet you didn’t think of that. Any artificial intelligence is not going to duplicate human experience. It's going to experience something else, something alien. It may be able to communicate in English, like the computer aboard the Star Trek Enterprise, but it will never understand what it's like to be human.

But that does not support Searle’s claim that the artificial intelligence understands nothing. Understanding involves making valid associations, as I did in the McDonald's kitchen. In fact, my room analogies help us understand the true meaning of the Chinese Room argument. Computers are designed to store references to data, which is what associations are ultimately made of.

Chinese Room: Library Rebuttal

One of the hallmarks of competent analogies is a one-to-one correspondence that maps aspects of an analogy onto aspects of the analogized target. We’re considering three corresponding analogies: human intelligence, artificial intelligence, and the Chinese Room experiment. While many aspects overlap, we are specifically interested in examining the role that John Searle plays in the Chinese Room and his equivalent role in the other analogies. Searle executes instructions and keeps notes on scraps of paper. This is equivalent to the processor and memory in the artificial intelligence analogy, and the brain in the human intelligence analogy.

Hardware is like an uninitialized brain. Software comes in two varieties: data and instructions. Data is stored in individual memory locations, like neurons. Instructions control the pathways, in a general purpose computer, that connect the memory locations together, like the inputs and outputs of neurons. The processor and instructions then compute activity and store the resultant data at individual memory locations. Data can be values or references. References are pointers to data. Information is what we call organized data. This is equivalent to the neural network of the brain, comprised of individual neurons integrated together into intricate circuits.

An inactive brain is considered brain dead. A slow mind is simply stupid. As a human mind is comprised of thought processes, artificial intelligence is comprised of computer processes. Those processes reside outside the scope of Searle’s awareness, both inside the thought experiment and apparently outside of it as well.

The interrogator on the outside could detect no difference if Searle were replaced inside the Chinese Room with a Chinaman who does understand Chinese. The Chinaman could perform the tasks done by Searle without accessing any of his own understanding of Chinese. Therefore, whether or not the man in the Chinese Room understands Chinese is irrelevant to the operation of the Chinese Room.

As Searle is presumably an intelligent agent, for which we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, the initial interpretation assumes that any intelligent behavior that arises within the simulation arises within the man in the room. This is not the case. The part of the system that the man in the room serves does not contain any of the relevant requirements for understanding Chinese.

The reason Searle asserts that he never learns Chinese is that he’s either too bogged down in the details or too detached from reality. Searle ‘can’t see the forest for its trees,’ or his ‘head is in the clouds.’ Either way he’s missed the mark. Therefore Searle is guilty of mistaken identity.

Chinese Library

In fact, John Searle’s performance as a computer hardware emulator in the Chinese Room is deficient in two crucial respects: speed and accuracy. Keeping notes on scraps of paper introduces an organizational nightmare. To address this obstacle I propose instantiating the Chinese Room inside of a Library, where all the books have been replaced by abacuses that have a direct one-to-one correspondence with memory locations in the computer memory, only each abacus inside the Chinese Library will need to be addressed via the Dewey Decimal System.

This Chinese Library variation improves Searle’s organizational ability and accuracy; but his speed, as with the original Chinese Room argument, continues to suck beyond belief. Understanding occurs at the speed of thought, not the speed of rot. Notice that the Chinese Kitchen, which operates in real time, does not suffer any speed discrepancy. So the results are realistic. Whereas with abacuses a trained Chinaman should exceed the speed of Searle, while never using his native understanding of Chinese. Searle is guilty of an assumed identity. The person in the Chinese Room is performing the role of the hardware, which is equivalent to the brain not the mind.

The natural, but incorrect, assumption is that since Searle is presumably an intelligent agent, that any artificial intelligence within the Chinese Room occurs within him. This is an incorrect assumption.

Chinese Room: Mexican Kitchen Rebuttal

A farce depends upon absurdity for its arsenal, in the same way rhetoric depends upon exaggeration and the unfamiliar. I asked before if you learned the Chinese characters for any Chinese menu items. Let’s do the same for Mexican menu items. If you’ve ever eaten at a Mexican restaurant, then have you ever learned any Mexican names for the dishes? Let’s list some names of Mexican food. Taco, burrito, enchilada, tortilla, salsa, guacamole, tamale, quesadilla, tostada, taquito, fajita, chile relleno, chimichanga, frijoles, huevos rancheros… Si, si. Gracias, gracias. No mas. No mas.

Suppose Searle had worked in a Mexican restaurant instead. Assume he didn’t know the names of any Mexican dishes before he began working. If you honestly believe he could actually cook Mexican food following recipes in a cookbook without learning any of the Mexican names for the dishes, then please stand up. You must be John Searle, but notice that the Chinese Room argument is falling apart. Why is that?

Intent Clarification

It makes absolutely no difference to a credible argument whether the kitchen is in a Chinese restaurant or in a Mexican restaurant, but it makes half a world of difference for purposes of subterfuge. Anybody who presents us with an unfamiliar situation immediately ascends to the status of an expert. A self proclaimed expert needs to keep things complicated to maintain his status. A teacher needs to make the subject material accessible to maintain her status. An expert puts self interest first. A teacher puts the interests of her students first. The goal of self interest is power. Put your trust in the messenger. The goal of common interest is truth. Put your trust in the message. That’s a whole world of difference. I hope I’m succeeding in making these issues easy enough for you to understand. That is my intent.

Chinese Room: Kitchen Rebuttal

Can a computer simulation of a mind seem so real as to understand language? John Searle, a professor of philosophy at UC Berkley, doesn’t seem to think so. He tried to refute any possibility of Artificial Intelligence with his Chinese Room argument.

Chinese Room Argument

From the outside the Chinese Room passes the Turing Test, in which an outside interrogator cannot distinguish between the hidden occupant of a room being a human or a machine. To perform the test, the outside interrogator, fluent in Chinese, writes messages in Chinese and passes them into the room. Responses, in Chinese, are eventually retrieved from the room which the interrogator evaluates and becomes convinced that the occupant of the room does in fact ‘understand Chinese.’

At this point, Searle asserts the Chinese Room passes the Turing Test. However, unbeknownst to the interrogator, inside the room John Searle himself performs all the work. Searle asserts that he does not understand Chinese. He takes written input from the outside, consults rule books, and uses scratch paper to figure out what actions to perform. The rule books contain a computer listing for an artificial intelligence program. Searle follows the program that culminates with output in Chinese that he sends out of the room.

Now here’s the kicker. Searle asserts that both before and after the exercise he does not ‘understand Chinese,’ and furthermore he asserts that the artificial intelligence program does not understand Chinese either, since he performed all the work inside the room. Therefore, Searle asserts, claims to artificial intelligence are refuted.

Chinese Kitchen Rebuttal

Upon cross examination, let’s get specific and say the Chinese Room in question is a kitchen. The Chinese Room is a Chinese Kitchen in a Chinese Restaurant. To begin with the waiter writes up a customer order, which he passes into the Chinese Kitchen. As stipulated, Searle is in the Chinese Room. He looks at the order and, as stipulated, it’s written in Chinese; but Searle, as stipulated, doesn’t understand Chinese. So, as stipulated, he consults a rule book.

The first rule book he consults is the menu. Every entrée on the menu lists the name of the dish in Chinese, the name in English, and the price. Ignore the price. It’s irrelevant to the cook. Using the menu, he tries to match the Chinese characters on the order with the Chinese dish names on the menu. Even if Searle doesn’t understand Chinese he can distinguish similar character patterns from different character patterns. From the Chinese characters Searle identifies the English dish names.

Just out of curiosity, if who’ve ever eaten at a Chinese restaurant, then have you ever bothered to learn the Chinese characters for the dishes you ordered? Me neither, and we can assume that Searle hasn't either.

At this point, Searle consults another rule book. It’s written in English so he can understand it, as stipulated. The next rule book he consults is a cookbook, from which he prepares the dishes according to recipes he finds by their English names. When Searle is done cooking, he passes the dishes out of the Chinese Kitchen for the waiter to serve to the customer. As stipulated, the output of the Chinese Room is in Chinese, Chinese food in this case.

According to the Turing Test the proof is in the tasting, ‘the customer is always right.’ If Searle performed an accurate impersonation of a competent chef, then most customers will be satisfied that Searle ‘understands Chinese’ in the cooking sense and leave a tip. Otherwise the dishes will be sent back to the kitchen. But according to Searle’s Chinese Room argument we should trust his self-evaluation of his ability to simulate artificial intelligence or in this case a cook. How good a cook John Searle rates himself remains an open question, but should we trust his opinion or the customer’s? That’s debatable. However the following conclusion is irrefutable.

As stipulated, at the end of the experiment, Searle asserts that he does not understand Chinese. Is this true? Let’s find out. So at the end of his shift, Searle exits the kitchen and encounters the waiter who strikes up a conversation in Chinese, but Searle doesn’t understand a word of Chinese. Therefore Searle concludes that he never learns to understand Chinese from his experience in the Chinese Room, which is true with qualifications.

Deaf Chef Clarification

In fact, the way the Chinese Room thought experiment is constructed, Seale never has a chance to understand Chinese any better than a deaf chef. So what does this mean? It means that if you didn’t understand from the beginning that the meaning of the phrase ‘understand Chinese’ in the Chinese Room argument really meant to ‘understand Chinese no better than a deaf chef’, then you either misunderstood or were mislead into misunderstanding the Chinese Room argument. Is that insight clear? The Chinese Room argument depends on an interpretation of the word ‘understand’ that seems familiar. However, once the correct interpretation is exposed through rigorous cross examination, then the Chinese Room argument loses sensibility. That is normally what happens with fallacious rhetorical arguments.

We all have a familiar sense of what it means to ‘understand Chinese,’ which involves auditory communication. However, this is incongruent with the best possible outcome of the Chinese Room argument, which is to ‘understand Chinese no better than a deaf chef.’ Agreement with the premise and conclusion of the Chinese Room argument depends upon our sustaining the initial incorrect belief. Once we become aware of this incongruence then the suspension of disbelief bubble bursts.