Digitally signed by ENTIDAD IDENTITY AND

CONSULTING SL - CIF B73415119 - NOMBRE

CERON GARCIA FRANCISCO ANTONIO - NIF
27478316D
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location: Murcia - Spain
'Date: 2009.09.05 20:12:22 +02'00

Brain, Computers and Mind: Speech and

Thought in Humans, Animals and Machines.
The false statement of the Semantic Web &
Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Francisco Antonio Cerón García

Physic’s Spanish Royal Society

fcerong@gmail.com

Index
1. - Introduction 2

2.- Current status of Computer Science. 3

3.- The Limits (Constraints) of the Tools in Science, Formal

Logic and Experimentation. 5

4.- The basic Mechanisms of Language and Thought. 8

5.- Structuralism, Continental Philosophy & Analytic

Philosophy. 9

6.- Knowledge and Transmission of Knowledge. 10

7.- Nature and Representation of Knowledge. 13

8.- Why not trying to teach how to talk and / or think to a

1
Machine? Limitations and failures of the approach of the
Description Logic. 15

9.- Thought and Language. 17

10.- The Thought is not the same as Language: What is

Intelligence? What is Thought? 19

11.- Difference between Animals and Humans, and Brain

and Mind. 19

12.- Conclusion: Inability of Language and human Thought

in the Machine , and the false statement of the Semantic
Web & Artificial Intelligence. 20

13.- Theorem: “The limit of The Artificial Intelligence”. 22

14.- Theorem: From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The

Semantic Web”. 24

15.- Bibliography 25

1 .- Introduction

In the reading of “Minds, Machines and Gödel” by

J.R. Lucas and other authors such as Roger Penrose, they
suggest that is impossible to think and/or talk for machines
or computers.

Metonymy, the first Mechanism of human Thought and

Language, have been built-in Machines or computers, and
it is the substrate of Symbolic Logic and/or Formal (and
therefore also of Mathematics), but we have lack of the
Metaphor, which lets human beings to "Conclude" in the

2
strict Sense of the term in Psychoanalysis: Metaphor brings
us to Reality and Time.

And this is my challenge: Find a Logic Consistent, that

besides the Metonymy in a Consistent Mathematical Logic,
and it has also the Metaphor incorporated.

2 .- Current status of Computer Science

The attempt to build the Semantic Web from the Description

Logic, which is in turn based on Symbolic Logic and
Mathematical Logic, is Contradictory and Inconsistent,
because although Symbolic Logic or Mathematical Logic is
Consistent, by definition it has unique or Unambiguous
sense (unique Meaning), which is totally Contradictory to
the Semantics of the Language (natural), which is
meaningless or Ambiguous (several Meanings).

If what you seek is, for example, as an application of the

Semantic Web, do a search on Google, and to get instead
of the several Ambiguous million results, only a few and
accurate results, we have to start from other Tools more
appropriate to the Natural Language, who is of Meaningful
Ambiguous, and therefore we must build new tools in place
of the existing ones that take into account this difference.

We should ask help to the Sciences that study the

Language, and especially we should focus on the Sciences
that study the Human Mind and Thought, we can find the
tools that we seek, and if it’s possible, add them on
Mathematics, and if it’s necessary, to invent a new
approach to Formal Logic, Symbolic Logic and/or current
math, that gives rise to a new and different logic than the
current Description Logic (Knowledge Representation),
which is a complete failure to built a Semantic Web on
Internet.

3
All this makes Sense if we analyze the Framework within
Human Knowledge has been developed, including the
prehistoric times. A fundamental features of it, and also in a
very simplified form, the only thing that truly differentiates us
from Animals is that we are "speaking beings", that is, we
make use of Language, and it is very important because we
use Language as a medium of Communication, which has
served for the Transmission of Knowledge throughout the
entire history of mankind.

The only thing that really changed the way of purely oral
Transmission (speech), has been the invention of Writing,
which allowed the survival and subsequent accumulation of
Knowledge, from the papyrus paper and the tables of clay
through the books manuscripts and reaching the invention
of Printing by Gutenberg. With this last discovery and
cheaper cost of Transmitting Knowledge, and subsequently
with the invention of the Internet (and Computers), it has
decreased the cost of Knowledge Transmission to almost
zero (at least in developed countries), and Knowledge for
the first time in Human history, is now available to almost all
the entire world and not for only a privileged few Humans
beings as in the Middle Ages.

But now if we could also built a Semantic Web on Internet,

savings would not only be an economic question and
monetary issues, the economy would be further savings of
Time of Thinking, or what is the same, spending less Time
to seek and find Knowledge.

Moreover, besides the history and the fundamental

characteristics in the Transmission of Knowledge and his
achievement, who is Human Civilization, we must define the
Framework within it has been developed throughout the
history of Mankind, and it is not a trivial and unimportant
issue, but this question is the most important. Today there
is Science-specific of Knowledge as the study of

4
Epistemology and others ... But we still need more tools in
other areas, such as Psychoanalysis, Linguistics, etc.

3 .- The Limits of the Tools in Science, Formal Logic

and Experimentation.

First I want to say that "Cognitive Neuroscience", where

everything related to Humans beings has a direct
explanation from "Neuroscience" and/or "Biology" and/or
"Genetics", is very Incomplete and Partial. The fundamental
working hypothesis of all modern Science is that Mind and
Brain are the same or equivalent, this is given due to the
exclusivity and dominance in the Science of Statistical and
Stochastic methods, Quantitative Research and Formal
Logic, ignoring and excluding Qualitative Research
methods. Although they are rigorous, they are Incomplete
and/or Contradictory too, as we could realize from many
results and paradoxes in Mathematics (Gödel’s theorems),
and in other areas of Science. But Human beings with
Language goes far beyond this "scientific" Reductionism
(see the Science as an exclusively Formal System of
Thought as well defined by orthodox and traditional way),
Human beings goes far beyond any Biological Nature, as
evidenced Psychoanalysis, particularly Freud and Lacan.

Freud and Lacan have discovered that there exists a

unique and singular Person in every Human being who is
unattainable, for instance, his /her Unconscious, and his/her
Unconscious is not generalizable, in the sense of
reductionists Sciences, like Genetics, Biology, Chemistry,
Mathematics, and Physics. It is still more widely from the
viewpoint of Formal Logic, because this system of Thought
is by definition closed and Complete by itself, but it is only a
Metonymic approaching of Reality, devoid of Metaphor of
Human Language and Thought. It is a very poor
approximation to Reality, despite the Technological benefits
that our Civilization has achieved from it, and it led us to its

5
own Limitations (Constraints) in the Knowledge of Reality,
which is clearly visible in many Paradoxes: Mathematics
(Gödel Incompleteness Theorems), Computer Science
(Turing machine and Halting Problem), and even Physical
Science (The Theory of Relativity is incompatible with the
physical and mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics -
our two fundamental theories of Science and Technology
closer to Reality).

In humanity history, the Sciences, Physics, Chemistry,

Mathematics and other Sciences such as Biology, Genetics,
Neuroscience, Medicine, etc.., and all its applications
across the Technology past and present, all of them are
based on a Formal Logic of Thinking, and precisely from
Gödel, we found numerous examples of Paradoxes ... All
this shows that we are at the Limits of the Knowledge. We
can provide Formal Logic, which by definition is limited only
to the Unambiguous Metonymy, and it has enabled the
construction of the current Technological Civilization, but we
are in a Logical Framework with Constrains of Formal
Logic, and as I said it is the Tool of Scientific Thought and
Technology by its definition, and throughout its history since
the days of Greek civilization.

Then if Formal Logic, which is the foundation of all Thought

of all the Science and Technology, can be "Contradictory"
and "Limited" or "Incomplete" (Gödel), you have to go a
step further and open the horizon using tools more
complete and less biased, we can take advantage of what
Psychoanalysis has discovered about Human beings and
its constitution of psychic structure in Three Orders: The
Symbolic Order, The Imaginary Order (and last The Real)
and the combination of both enables us to appreciate
"something" of Reality, but in a Partial and fragmented way,
there is no Consistency and reciprocity between what our
Mind is capable of reaching to grasp or understand of
Reality, with what is truly real (Real World).

6
And for this failure, and because we have not realized that
the Discourse of Science and Technology is Alienating, we
begin to find the Science riddled with Paradoxes and
Contradictions, and to make matters worse, as Metaphor
is excluded of the Scientific discourse it becomes more
Metonymic and Closed, the more away from Reality, and a
living example for all people and very close to them, is the
economic current world "crisis", where the whole
economic system has devoured itself, nor do the whole
Humanity with the Alienation of a nuclear war (we were not
far away from that), nor do we devour ourselves. All of this
is going on without any Constraint to Science and
Technology to get the "Future" and "Progress", if we are not
aware of their Limits and Constraints, and we are not
responsible for them, Reality is always present to remind it
not so very nice to us. I do not propose a return to Nature,
which is "Mythical", but we should take care of our
responsibility and take the Limits of Scientific Thought and
Technology, but as I am a scientist I attempt to go one step
further there, and bearing in mind these limitations and my
own limitations to know the Reality, I am trying to find new
ways of Thinking applicable to Science, Technology and
Computers.

The worst mistake of the Science is believing that Science

is the unique fundamental truth and is above all, but Reality
is so complex and so complicated that requires at least a
large amount of humility, this is why the Science is so
unable to go beyond their own Rhetoric and its own Logical
Limits, and Science should realize that Mind and Brain
are not equivalent and/or equal, this is the big mistake of
the majority of current scientific people (Scientism). But at
least if you do not want to accept it as a True and proven,
we could always use it as Axiomatic Principle, like
thousands of Knowledge in all areas of Science that are not
Demonstrable but are taken for Certain, and if my axiom
that Mind and Brain are not the same, and it works correctly

7
and leads to Consistent Results with the Real World, then
we would think that it is True.

4 .- The basic Mechanisms of Language and Thought.

In addition to what said above, Psychoanalysis also teaches

us that there are two basic mechanisms in the Language
(Saussure) and the Human Thought, which are
displacement or Metonymy, and condensation or Metaphor
(Freud), or linguistically called Metonymy and Metaphor.

Metonymy is the fundamental mechanism of Scientific

Thought (and math), and it reflects the Formal Logic and/or
symbolic, where the Meaning of Ambiguous Language has
been dissected in a precise and Unambiguous Meaning to
get Rigor and Consistency, therefore exclude the
Contradiction, but at the cost of removing the other
mechanism of Thought, which is the condensation or
Metaphor, paradoxically coming to Contradictory (see
Paradoxes ...) or Incomplete results. The Formal Logical
system has operated up and allows us to develop our
Technological Civilization, but as I said, we are finding its
Logical Limits.

Now we can take a step further and beyond, incorporating

the Metaphor of our Logical System of Thought in Science
and Technology, where the incorporation of the Metaphor,
could mean the loss of the principle of generality, but
although it would still be incomplete, you have a closer and
more accurate representation of reality than with the
Traditional System. This is what I intend to do and try to
build from now on...

And if you define logic of Metonymy that has also

incorporated the Metaphor, then I will have incorporated the
two basic Mechanisms of Human Thought and Language. It
will still be a partial and limited Knowledge, but as I have

8
said before, with a better perception of Reality that the
mere Metonymy of Symbolic Logic.

The Metaphor/ condensation is what allows us to Conclude,

and it introduces us to Reality and Time, whereas in
symbolic or Mathematical Logic, Reality comes only through
the Cardinality of Numbers.

5 .- Structuralism, Continental Philosophy & Analytic

Philosophy.

The experimental and theoretical framework in which I

research is therefore the "Structuralism", movement, who is
included in Continental Philosophy and opposite to Analytic
Philosophy, starting from Saussure to the study of
language, according to Jakobson and Levi Strauss, and
ending with Freud and Lacan and the discovery of the
Unconscious, the Psychoanalysis and the creation of man
as a singular person.

I do not propose to make a perfect demonstration, complete

and rigorous in the classical and orthodox sense of science,
if we take the concept of formal logic and the thinking of
orthodox science and technology, this does not mean giving
up the coherence or internal consistency, but my system is
not complete by definition, and therefore not closed, I only
require for it, if I can do that, the non-contradiction
principle, and it is from the experimental and theoretical
framework that I have defined, to look for, identify, and/or
invent if it is necessary, the tools that allow me to analyze
and examine the knowledge not only of a metonymic form
of formal logic and/or symbolic, as has happened so far in
Computing and Internet, but also I can built a semantic
Web, with the addition of a tool that represents the
metaphor, and the principle of condensation of language
and human thought, which is what brings us closer to reality
through the passage of time and the conclusion.

9
This logical system as I have explained on our perception of
reality, by definition will not be complete, and would be
consistent, but it will be a useful tool to manage knowledge
online. I do not intend that computers could speak, because
my theorem "The limit of The Semantic Web", says that this
is impossible, but all that you can research in that way
would be a breakthrough for the handling and transmission
of knowledge via the Internet.

This logical system means that it is not closed, so it is open,

although it seems impossible to build something "scientific"
in this way, but all science and technology and their findings
are largely embedded in this framework, because although
we tried to formalize science and technology with formal
logic, the relationship of science and technology with the
reality goes through our mind and its mechanisms
sometimes inconsistent, but directly related to the real thing,
where nobody is, from there is that I intend to seek and find
this new order of thought, where everything is not
completely closed and completed, but if you were there,
everything is connected to reality through the language
computer and the Internet.

This is my project, and it is perhaps nonsensical great and

impossible, but as Lacan said "the impossible is the only
reality", and so I am researching on it!

6.- Knowledge and Transmission of Knowledge.

Knowledge is, first, the state which knows or knows

something, and secondly, the content known or known as
part of the cultural heritage of mankind. By extension, also
often called "knowledge" of everything an individual or a
society deemed given or known acquaintance.

There is no doubt, science is one of the main types of

knowledge. The sciences are the result of efforts and

10
research methods in search for answers to specific
problems, and the elucidation of which seeks to provide an
adequate representation of the world. There are, however,
many types of knowledge, not being scientists, they are
perfectly suited to its purpose: the know-how in the crafts,
learn to swim, etc.. And knowing the language, the
traditions, legends, customs and ideas of a particular
culture, the knowledge that individuals have their own
history (they know their name, they know their parents and
their past), or even the common knowledge to a given
society, including the humanity (to know what is a hammer,
knowing that water extinguishes fire).

Even when information is generated each time, however,

the amount of human knowledge is necessarily finite, as
well as the difficulty of solving such problems as the origin
of life and the universe, death, among many others.

The knowledge acquired through a variety of cognitive

processes: perception, memory, experience (attempts
followed by success or failure), reasoning, learning and
teaching, testimony of third parties ... Controlled
observation, experimentation, modelling, criticism of
sources (in history), surveys, and other procedures that are
specifically employed by the sciences, can be viewed as a
refinement or an implementation of the above. These are
the subject of study of epistemology.

The importance attached to knowledge distinguishes

humanity from other animal species. All human societies
acquire, preserve and transmit a substantial amount of
knowledge, mainly, through language. With the rise of
civilizations, the accumulation and dissemination of
knowledge are multiplied by the writing. Throughout history,
mankind has developed a variety of techniques to preserve,
transmit and develop knowledge, such as school,
encyclopaedias, newspapers, and computers.

11
This importance goes hand in hand with a questioning of
the value of knowledge. Many societies and religious
movements, political philosophers have considered the
accretion of knowledge, or its dissemination, is not
appropriate and should be limited. Conversely, other groups
and societies have created institutions to ensure their
preservation, development and dissemination. Also, debate
about the respective values of different domains and types
of knowledge.

In contemporary societies, the diffusion of knowledge, or

the contrary, retention of knowledge, has an important
political and economic role, including military, so does the
spread of pseudo-knowledge (or disinformation).
Knowledge contributes as a power source. This role
explains much of the dissemination of propaganda and
pseudo-science, which attempts to present as knowledge,
things that are not. This gives a particular importance to the
sources of knowledge assumptions, such as mass media
and their tools, such as the Internet.

And just as the invention of writing and printing brought

about a revolution and the explosion of knowledge, now the
invention of the Internet and the attempt to build a Semantic
Web on it, would mean a revolution and the exponential
explosion in the transmission of knowledge, on a scale
without precedent for the entire history of civilization, not
only because all knowledge would be accessible to a very
small cost as the Internet has given rise, but also the cost of
search time of the knowledge, through the filter of the
Semantic Web on the Internet, would be reduced to almost
zero.

To achieve the goal of building the Semantic Web, we need

to "teach" the language to computers, and we need to
know:

What is the nature of knowledge?

12
 How to represent knowledge?

And these questions and their answers are not frivolous,

because we must be aware that this is the crucial step that
represents the Semantic Web: The incorporation of the
"Language" in computers! And although my theorem "The
limit of The Semantic Web" said that this is an impossible
goal, everything that we discover researching in this way,
would give us new tools for knowledge transfer. Obviously,
if we were able to reach this goal we’d be very close to
implant a “human thought” into machines but although
having such skill they’d never be equivalent to human
beings because of their different connections to the real
world. If it would be very close to machines that have
"human thought" that even though taking such a skill? they
would never be the same or equivalent to human beings by
their distinct relations with reality.

7 .- Nature and Representation of Knowledge.

The classical theory of transmitting knowledge

(Communication Theory), which is communication theory,
tells us that there is a transmitter (sender) and a receiver,
which is what also uses psychology as a science, but the
novelty of the discovery of psychoanalysis, is that in
addition to the aforementioned receiver there is a second
receiver that is also the same issuer (sender). And
Psychoanalysis reveals the human being as a subject split,
and thus reveals the ambivalence of language and the
absence of an unequivocal sense of it, that is, without a
sense of the meaning of language, as Wittgenstein said.

Psychoanalysis tells us that the constitution of the human

being involved a symbolic world, which is the language (
The Symbolic Order ), an imaginary world ( The Imaginary
Order ), which is the share that each has in the language,
and the existence in The Real world, which is only

13
accessible through the representation of it that gives us the
combination of symbolic and the imaginary.

Regardless of all the complex details in psychoanalytic

theory, you should take a look at this subject on Freud and
Lacan, the important thing is that humans do not perceive
the real world or reality as it is, but they perceive it under
the prism of their own original constitution as human being.
Thus the apprehension of knowledge is not unlimited, but it
is limited to the ambivalent nature of human language,
which sets the limits of knowledge of reality, and a good
example of it is the unsuccessful attempt of the great
mathematician Hilbert and others, to construct a
mathematical system axiomatically complete and not
contradictory in itself, but as Gödel proved with his
theorems, if a system of knowledge is complete, then it
is contradictory, and the opposite, if a system is
incomplete then it is not contradictory, we also have
other many examples as the Turing machine and “the
halting problem” or stop of calculation. Eventually what all
this tells us, is that language is dragging us to their own
limits, and if we do not have this in mind to build the
Semantic Web, we are doomed to failure from the outset.

Then the nature of knowledge is limited both, by the

language as a transmitter of knowledge, and the
Psychoanalytic structure of humans beings. And what
represents knowledge among humans, it is not the thought,
but it is the transmitter, or language. So the important thing
is not so much the nature of knowledge, it is the nature of
language and the means to transfer the language, and
natural language is ambivalent and ambiguous, and this is
what we have to take into account building Semantic Web.

One more point, the myths that we often disregard as being

outdated and not modern, precisely the myths tell us what
are the limits of our perception of reality, the limits of our
thinking, and they all have in common besides the use of

14
metaphor, which we mark the passage of reality as time
goes on, the conclusion, and is because of that, human
beings dont have the problem of stopping as in the Turing
machine. Going further and more abundant, both Hegel and
Kant considered time not categorized, and this is the same
thing for Psychoanalysis, time is an illusion of our
perception, and time is a way of representing reality as a
course of events. And the Description Logic, which is the
basis now used to build the Semantic Web, cannot give
account of language, because you start building Description
Logic (it has been built from Knowledge Representation
who has been built from Formal Logic) missing the
metaphor, since it is a symbolic logic, and the axiomatic
system is complete, and lacking the metaphor, and of
course as well as Gödel has shown us, ultimately leads to a
contradiction, which is what happens all the time when
trying to build the Semantic Web from this base: They have
been a complete failure despite the multimillion-dollar
investment! The basis for transferring knowledge, as I said
earlier is natural language, and language has two
fundamental structures:

Metonymy and metaphor.

With the metonymy we already have built the mathematical

language, everything in it is a metonymic process, and if
time take part of it, it is only a fiction, f(t) or time-dependent,
but there is no use of metaphor, which could realize us of
the senseless of the metonymy, metaphor would take us to
reality and lead to solve the problem of finding the stop of
the Turing machine.

Then we have to introduce the metaphor in the foundations

of mathematics, which would allow us to build a logically
consistent, but with no means contradictory, similar to the
logic of human unconscious as understood by
Psychoanalysis. If you achieve that goal, we would have the

15
right tools to implement the Semantic Web on computers,
and operate.

And this is my challenge: Find that logic consistent has

metonymy in mathematical logic consistent, and has also
incorporated the metaphor.

8.- Why not trying to teach how to talk and / or think to

a Machine? Limitations and failures of the approach of
the Description Logic.

When I was studying science, throughout my university's

years, a very experienced teacher of physics and
mathematics, gave to me the following two advices:

The first advise, when one is faced with a problem to solve,

the problem does not ask you how much know about it, to
accommodate itself to your knowledge and be able to
resolve it, this seems a truism and the truth of pure common
sense, but in this case is truest than ever.

The second advise was that "usually" all problems have a

solution that is "implicit" if the question of the problem is
well posed, in other words if the reference frame of the
problem is well built.

Both these comments made me totally change my point of

view and I started to address the problem of building the
"Semantic Web", instead of putting my efforts directly in
their resolution, with the deep and dense training on
Mathematics and Physics that I acquired in my training as a
scientist, and I realize that it has been the usual attitude of
all those who have worked so far in this field trying to solve
this problem, and so far with little success, I preferred to
leave the particular and specific problem, and take a more
comprehensive and broad in the same (which means leave
the forest to see a whole and not a single tree), and

16
therefore as I said, instead of attempt directly and rapidly
his solution, I am taking a long detour, and not absurd or
meaningless, according to the two "recommendations"
above, and I am building a framework to provide a place to
build “the Semantic Web”.

To do this I started looking for where to build the "Semantic

Web" in computing, and now it is a part of the logic
description, which in turn is based on Symbolic Logic and
Mathematical Logic.

As I know the limitations of symbolic or formal logic,

reflected in the theorems of Gödel and many paradoxes in
mathematics and physics, I have expanded my field of
knowledge from Fundamental Science to Humanities
(Social Sciences), and if so then it is to teach to talk to a
computer (or what is equivalent teach a computer to
understand what we say), we are asking for the language,
and therefore I joined the language in the framework of the
problem.

It could have gone to philosophy, but the problem that I

found is that their development uses formal logic as a
unique system of thought (as in pure mathematics).

9.- Thought and Language.

The need to answer the question what is intelligence? And

what is thought? Both answer are necessary to try to teach
a machine, and the answers of this questions could be
found on Psychoanalysis combined with linguistics, not on
psychology or biology or genetics, as they used only an
approximation to reality which is quantitative, statistical, and
formal logic, and although the method is very orthodox on
science, formal logic has serious limitations, because if our
hypotheses are complete then the system is in
contradiction, and if our assumptions are incomplete then
the system is consistent. The orthodox approach of science

17
has serious limitations, in addition to the above, by requiring
experimental verification, since not everything that exists or
is part of reality is experimentally verifiable, in a quantitative
and statistical way, and if we do not accept this limitation to
access absolutely to reality, at least it should be taken as a
working hypothesis, because what I am saying is that our
approach of the orthodox scientific method is incomplete
and does not allow us to solve the problem that we are
dealing with.

And more, Quantum Mechanics on Physical Science, says

us that if we make any experiment, we are changing the
isolated conditions of it when we show it, and then we
change the results of it by our interaction with it. All of this
means that if we want to assure all the scientific knowledge
on experimentation, we change the results of our own real
experiments; then it is a illusion and a big mistake to built a
perfect formal logical system on Science which only
reference are the experiments, and a example of it is the
paradox of Schrödinger's Cat.

According to psychoanalysis, the human being is a reality

that goes beyond the merely biological, because human
beings are not regulated exclusively by its own instincts (as
animals in the field of biology). According to Psychoanalysis
humans beings are regulated by their relationship with the
“Goce”: Jouissance-Enjoyment (drives: Libido/Eros &
Thanatos) in the technical sense of that term in
Psychoanalysis and they are not regulated by the Instincts;
from the Freud’s age English people has translated the
German Trieb as Instincts, and it is a great mistake! And it
is one of the main reasons because for English scientists
Brain is the same as Mind. The importance of this term
"unknown" for the rest of science is that it is accurate and
marks the exact difference between humans and all other
living beings. This difference is that we are "speaking
beings", and this has enabled us to build our civilization,
culture and technology. Therefore, as far as possible we

18
could make a machine to reach thought or talk, it will never
be equivalent to a human being, because their relation with
reality is different: the human being feels (and thinks) for the
“Goce” and the machine could think or speak but could not
feel because it has no relation to the "lack" and “Goce”. And
the sense of the term feel, I mean it technically in
Psychoanalysis, the lack of not being complete, the pain
being experienced by every human being or for each
individual, and not generalizable in the experimental,
sense, statistical and quantitative science, but if I cannot
prove it scientifically, it does not mean that it does not exist,
and this particular and specific link with the human
existence, modify profoundly its relationship with reality, so
that is not reproducible, and not outside of each
experimental human being, and also we cannot build a
machine with this faculties. This is because I say that even
if we could talk to a machine, and by extension it has a
dimension of our thinking, it would never be complete in the
sense of the lack experience, the real experience of every
human being. The only hard evidence in this regard can be
drawn from the clinic and/or psychopathology of
psychoanalysis, and try to get to understand some of it is
necessary to be a scholar of psychoanalysis, but we can
take it at least as a hypothesis and or a working premise: If
all the assumptions are set up correctly, I should be able to
find the solution to our problem.

10.- The Thought is not the same as Language: What is

Intelligence? What is Thought?

Now I am trying to answer the question: What is

intelligence? To define what is Intelligence, from
Psychoanalysis, and as I understand it, Intelligence is the
conjunction of the three orders of the psychic structure of
Human beings:

19
First, The Symbolic Order (the language), Second, The
Imaginary Order (it is the partial access to the language of
each human being), Third, the existence of the person in
the reality (The Real), all this terms contained in the strict
technical sense of psychoanalysis. Because of this we
could realize that language is not the same as thought, but
thought and intelligence are the same or equivalents, and
now I am trying to answer the question: What is thought?
And again Though is the conjunction of the three orders of
the psychic structure of Human beings: First, The Symbolic
Order (the language), Second, The Imaginary Order (it is
the partial access to the language of each human being),
Third, the existence of the person in the reality (The Real).

Then I do not need to reach deeper into the thought and

intelligence, I can not build a machine that would feel the
"failure" and/or “pain” of the existence like human beings (it
is what creates metaphor), so I could only take the
language, and it will bring a dimension of thought, not
exactly like that of humans, but at least more powerful than
mere formal logic, and then the two mechanisms to built our
machine are metonymy and metaphor, I understand that
these are the two basic mechanisms of human language
(and thought & intelligence).

11.- Difference between Animals and Humans, and

Brain and Mind.

One more comment about the nature of thought and the

rest of living beings or animals: animals have access only to
the imagination (the Mirror Stage), which is not the
language (the symbolic order), and animals can not access
to language, I mean, that language is not only the ability to
speak and/or transmitting knowledge, the symbolic
language is the ability to grasp the reality (the real world),
and because of this they are not related to the “Goce”, and
their behaviours are governed only by the "Instincts", which

20
are biological and genetic mechanisms, and inherited
behaviour for survival, and are feasible for experiments,
with quantitative and statistics measures, while access to
language (the symbolic order) of humans beings, makes on
them a transformation from their purely biological nature of
the brain, and it creates the "mind", which is related to the
“Goce” and "lack". I say more times in accurate way for
being well understood: if there is no access to the language
there is no access to the “Goce” and "lack", and neither
thought and intelligence, but I wonder: could there be some
kind of access to language without access to the “Goce”?,
and the answer that we have from computers is that they
have partly access to language, through symbolic logic, but
have no access to pain or the “Goce” as humans beings.
Thus incorporating the other mechanism of language,
metaphor, to a machine is very complicated, because we
would build a logical structure with metaphor, then if I can
not add “Goce” and “lack” into a machine, I can not
incorporate the metaphor, and therefore a machine can not
talk, can not think, and can not have intelligence.

12.- Conclusion: Inability of Language and human

Thought in the Machine , and the false statement of the
Semantic Web & Artificial Intelligence.

After all this, my program is unsuccessful and it is not

possible to teach the language to a machine, because it
lacks any relationship with the “Goce” and then is not
possible to introduce another mechanism of language and
thought, the metaphor. The latter arises from the processes
of elaboration of the unconscious and is the conclusion of
them. We can not build machines with access to the
“Goce”, so it is impossible to give them intelligence as do
humans. And with regard to animals, but would have to say
that all animals have access to the "lack" of existence, but
they are unable to symbolize it, they lack the mechanisms

21
of human thought, which are metaphor and metonymy, and
they can not construct a language, which would allows them
to build a symbolic system that could create culture,
civilization and technology, which is the case in humans.
The animals are only in the stage mirror, and they are only
a biological body, because there is no separation of the
biological body as in the case of human beings (because of
the symbolic order humans beings could do that), then the
animals do have "brains" but not have "mind".

The claim that a central property of human beings,

Intelligence —the Sapience of Homo sapiens— can be so
precisely described that it can be simulated by a
machine is a false statement!

The claim that a central property of human

beings, Language can be so precisely described that it
can be simulated by a machine with the Semantic
Web is a false statement!

The final question for me comes across this preparation and

it is:
Why do human beings (we are animals too) have been able
to speak to build a symbolic world apprehends reality in a
symbolic order and yet the rest of living beings (animals)
have not been able to do this?
Or in another way:
Why, if both animals and humans are associated with a real
biological difference (albeit with very small differences in
genetic differences between all species living) the human
being has agreed to the relationship with the “Goce” (which
has allowed him to speak) while the animals are left in the
stadium or imaginary mirror and have no connection with
the “Goce”? And I'm almost absolutely sure that the
answers to them do not come from biology, genetics, or any
other neuroscience...

22
13.- Theorem: “The limit of The Artificial Intelligence”.

The limit of the Artificial Intelligence is not set by the use of

machines themselves, and biological systems could be
used to reach this goal, but as the Logic that is being used
to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time,
since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the
metaphor, and this is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the
final tautology of each construction or metonymic
mathematical language, which leads to inconsistencies. The
construction of the Artificial Intelligence is an Undecidible
Problem .

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that

makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human
unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on
positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and
this is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the
perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired
with the absence.

The problem of Artificial Intelligence is that we are trying to

build an Intelligence system to replace our way of thinking,
at least in the information search, but the special nature of
human mind is the use of metaphor which lets human
beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the
human mind the Halting Problem or stop of calculation.

If you suppose as a theorem, that it is possible to construct

a machine, with an Intelligence with capabilities similar to
human Intelligence, we should face it as a theorem, we can
prove it to be false with a Counter Example, and it is given
in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting
problem” or stop of calculation.

So all efforts faced toward Artificial Intelligence are doomed

to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of

23
thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech,
because only a mathematical construction, which will
always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of
metaphor that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.

14.- Theorem: From Logic to Ontology: The limit of

“The Semantic Web”.

The limit of the Semantic Web is not set by the use of

machines themselves, and biological systems could be
used to reach this goal, but as the Logic that is being used
to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time,
since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the
metaphor, and this is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the
final tautology of each construction or metonymic
Mathematical Language , which leads to inconsistencies.
The construction of the Semantic Web is an Undecidible
Problem .

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that

makes inconsistent use of time, inherent in human
unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on
positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and
this is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the
perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired
with the absence.

The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to

replace our way of thinking, at least in the information
search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of
time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore
does not exist in the human mind the Halting Problem or
stop of calculation.

So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to

failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of

24
thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech,
because only a mathematical construction, which will
always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of
the time that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.

As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to

construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities
similar to human language, which has the use of time,
should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false
with a Counter Example, and it is given in the particular
case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem”.

15.- Bibliography and Index of Useful Concepts

If you take a look at the Ninety-two posts below down,

or in Last Post Index & View of Meta Internet Blog (you can
look for each of them in the search of the blog or in
Wikipedia -and if you speak Spanish language you should
change from English to Spanish language-), then you could
realize that you understand all of the entire frame and the
background that is needed to.

Computability theory (computer science)

Computer science

Computational complexity theory

Semantic Web’s Terms & Companies & People

& Organizations

25
Information

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The

Semantic Web”

Computation

Computational problem

Computer

Mathematical object

Algorithm

Computer programming

Programming language

Mathematical proof

Mathematical logic

26
Syntax

Operator Grammar

Recursive categorical syntax

Semantics

Grammar

In theoretical computer science, a formal grammar

(sometimes simply called a grammar) is

Ferdinand de Saussure

Metaphor

Language of thought

Intuitionistic logic

Propositional calculus

First-order logic

27
Second-order logic

Infinitary logic

Interface metaphor

Metonymy

Morphology (linguistics)

Ferdinand de Saussure

Phonology

Language

Natural language

Formal language

Theory of computation

Formal semantics

28
Specification language

Pragmatics

Meaning (linguistics)

Polysemy

Synchronic analysis

Historical linguistics (also called diachronic linguistics)

is the study of language change.

Roman Jakobson

Computational linguistics

Discourse analysis

Phonetics

Sentence (mathematical logic)

In theoretical computer science, a formal grammar

(sometimes simply called a grammar) is a set of
formation rules that describe which strings formed

29
from the alphabet of a formal language are syntactically
valid within the language.

Chomsky hierarchy

First-order logic is a formal logic used in mathematics,

philosophy, linguistics, and computer science.

Second-order logic

Structuralism

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Claude Lévi-Strauss

Jacques Derrida

Jacques Lacan

Metonymy

Literal

Literal and figurative language

30
Trope (linguistics)

Emphasis

Hyperbole

Parable

Allegory

Simile

Synecdoche

Irony

Antanaclasis

Rhetoric

Semiotics

Figure of speech

31
Philosophy of language

Sense and reference

Connotation

Denotation

Reference

Extension (semantics)

Intension

Intensional logic

Web Ontology Language

Ontology (the term in philosophy)

Ontology (information science)

Semantic Web

32
Description logic

Knowledge representation

“Minds, Machines and Gödel: A Retrospect”

Minds, Machines and Gödel — the original paper

33