1. Pavel N. Baryshnikov Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University 9 Kalinin Avenue, Pyatigorsk, 357500, Stavropol Region, Russia pnbaryshnikov@pglu.ru

2. “Intellect” and non-formalizable human concepts; Mathematics and brain activity; Computability of Self-entity; Problem of metalinguistic description; “Too human” cognition in environment complexity (summary)

3.  The theory of AI provokes some particular anthropological models of cognitive processes; The process of defining becomes quite problematic, as the word "intellect" has an anthropological "conceptual trail " in everyday language. According to this definition, only a human being may possess an "intellect" along with all the variety of non-formalized axiological and ethical contents. The idea of AI, which is capable of reproducing of the main functions of human consciousness on the basis of information processes. And we interpret the human cognition as informational procedure.

4. The conclusion seems to be quite a paradox: our consciousness is able to take a metaposition towards its processes of logical, linguistic and behavioral acting, the artificial intellectual systems, in return, do not need it. Why? Because the machines don’t know about its own existence.

6.  Human brain is not only a calculating processor working with the evolution programs, but also an open developing system connected to the source of these programs themselves.

7. Brain is a material carrier of countable physical processes and it is possible to study it through down to the limits of “fissility” of substance. At the same time, the result of consciousness activity is utterly unstable and is quite difficult to work with using formal analytical methods.

8.  In other words, within informational models of consciousness it is easier to study the influence of a wave of a certain length upon the photo-receptors with the further information transfer to the visual zone of a cerebral cortex than to take out of consciousness a subjective mental image or a “branching” linguistic concepts using complex metaphors.

9.  From the point of view of logical and mathematical methods there is a problem of non-recursiveness of the natural semantics, except the restrictions tied up to computability of the mental processes.

10. Computable structures were described and formalized long ago, but the laws which generate the given structures (according to the mentioned theorem of Gödel) are out of the limits of structures.

11.  There are some synthetic approaches (V. Nalimov) which propose to enter spontaneous filter (p(y/μ) in the Bayes' rule:  p(μ/y)= kp(μ) p(y/μ)  It contradicts the information nature itself because information transmits the strong ordered meaning.

13.  The human capacity to self-consciousness isn’t model-based as the process of natural language because the semantic base of natural language is the unique system of token computation which mounts the Gödel’s ontological proof.

14.  What does “self-entity” mean? “ To experience the absolute is to experience the absence of self, person, entity, soul, essence, substance, presence. We realize very distinctly that the sense of the entity of the self is actually a result of holding different things together with some sort of glue. The glue is the concept of entity, giving the illusion of entityhood” The most striking property of natural language is the creating of infinite senses with limited syntax code plus possibility of description of proper referential procedures. What is this glue?

15.  If there is a level of behavioral or communicative intention in the proposition system (saying the preposition meaning “x” I keep in mind “y”) it means that there is a metasubject of proposition. In the natural language the recipient interprets as a rule “senses” the true speaker’s intention with nonverbal code, cultural presupposition and enigmatic inference rules (semantic deduction).

16.  Here we have a paradox: the referent of pronoun “I” has nothing in common with the person pronouncing it. Because saying “I” we intend something quite different than what we perceive as our “self”. But it is something that we feel our “self”, “encodes” the linguistic embodiment of pronominal referent.  And here the mathematical identity law is broken!

17. There are technological possibilities of modeling of a natural signal and of its limited scope of meanings as well.

18.  Bee-robotLinguistic behavior Basis of a decoded bee dance, with signal formal models. Polysemantics, interpretative communicative basis, opportunity of metadescription.

19.  Theoretical and informational approach may decode the quantitative component of the signal system or levels of complexity of the system, but not the sense-creating procedures of consciousness capable of generating endless number of senses using a limited number of signs.

20. Semantic Web 2.0Linguistic consciousness The server uses context metadata RDF (Resource Description Framework); sourcing the meaning out of net object of information exchange (based on logical conclusion). We can talk here about prototype of machine understanding and self- learning. Linguistic procedures of consciousness (it is impossible to calculate this semantics) can easily solve the problem of conceptualization of the experience of perception and communication.

21. Complex non-formalizable functions of consciousness were reflected within linguistic sign and symbolical systems:  Introspection and self-entity;  Free sense-creating;  “Flinkering” senses and “branched” concepts;  Forms of metadescription;

22.  Whether it is worth trying to reproduce these “too human” forms of cognition within artificial models?