THE BIG PICTURE: HCI – HMI – AAI in History – Engineering – Society – Philosophy

ISSN 2567-6458, 20.April 2019
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch

A first draft version …


The context for this text is the whole block dedicated to the AAI (Actor-Actor Interaction)  paradigm. The aim of this text is to give the big picture of all dimensions and components of this subject as it shows up during April 2019.

The first dimension introduced is the historical dimension, because this allows a first orientation in the course of events which lead  to the actual situation. It starts with the early days of real computers in the thirties and forties of the 20 century.

The second dimension is the engineering dimension which describes the special view within which we are looking onto the overall topic of interactions between human persons and computers (or machines or technology or society). We are interested how to transform a given problem into a valuable solution in a methodological sound way called engineering.

The third dimension is the whole of society because engineering happens always as some process within a society.  Society provides the resources which can be used and spends the preferences (values) what is understood as ‘valuable’, as ‘good’.

The fourth dimension is Philosophy as that kind of thinking which takes everything into account which can be thought and within thinking Philosophy clarifies conditions of thinking, possible tools of thinking and has to clarify when some symbolic expression becomes true.


In history we are looking back in the course of events. And this looking back is in a first step guided by the  concepts of HCI (Human-Computer Interface) and  HMI (Human-Machine Interaction).

It is an interesting phenomenon how the original focus of the interface between human persons and the early computers shifted to  the more general picture of interaction because the computer as machine developed rapidly on account of the rapid development of the enabling hardware (HW)  the enabling software (SW).

Within the general framework of hardware and software the so-called artificial intelligence (AI) developed first as a sub-topic on its own. Since the last 10 – 20 years it became in a way productive that it now  seems to become a normal part of every kind of software. Software and smart software seem to be   interchangeable. Thus the  new wording of augmented or collective intelligence is emerging intending to bridge the possible gap between humans with their human intelligence and machine intelligence. There is some motivation from the side of society not to allow the impression that the smart (intelligent) machines will replace some day the humans. Instead one is propagating the vision of a new collective shape of intelligence where human and machine intelligence allows a symbiosis where each side gives hist best and receives a maximum in a win-win situation.

What is revealing about the actual situation is the fact that the mainstream is always talking about intelligence but not seriously about learning! Intelligence is by its roots a static concept representing some capabilities at a certain point of time, while learning is the more general dynamic concept that a system can change its behavior depending from actual external stimuli as well as internal states. And such a change includes real changes of some of its internal states. Intelligence does not communicate this dynamics! The most demanding aspect of learning is the need for preferences. Without preferences learning is impossible. Today machine learning is a very weak example of learning because the question of preferences is not a real topic there. One assumes that some reward is available, but one does not really investigate this topic. The rare research trying to do this job is stating that there is not the faintest idea around how a general continuous learning could happen. Human society is of no help for this problem while human societies have a clash of many, often opposite, values, and they have no commonly accepted view how to improve this situation.


Engineering is the art and the science to transform a given problem into a valuable and working solution. What is valuable decides the surrounding enabling society and this judgment can change during the course of time.  Whether some solution is judged to be working can change during the course of time too but the criteria used for this judgment are more stable because of their adherence to concrete capabilities of technical solutions.

While engineering was and is  always  a kind of an art and needs such aspects like creativity, innovation, intuition etc. it is also and as far as possible a procedure driven by defined methods how to do things, and these methods are as far as possible backed up by scientific theories. The real engineer therefore synthesizes art, technology and science in a unique way which can not completely be learned in the schools.

In the past as well as in the present engineering has to happen in teams of many, often many thousands or even more, people which coordinate their brains by communication which enables in the individual brains some kind of understanding, of emerging world pictures,  which in turn guide the perception, the decisions, and the concrete behavior of everybody. And these cognitive processes are embedded — in every individual team member — in mixtures of desires, emotions, as well as motivations, which can support the cognitive processes or obstruct them. Therefore an optimal result can only be reached if the communication serves all necessary cognitive processes and the interactions between the team members enable the necessary constructive desires, emotions, and motivations.

If an engineering process is done by a small group of dedicated experts  — usually triggered by the given problem of an individual stakeholder — this can work well for many situations. It has the flavor of a so-called top-down approach. If the engineering deals with states of affairs where different kinds of people, citizens of some town etc. are affected by the results of such a process, the restriction to  a small group of experts  can become highly counterproductive. In those cases of a widespread interest it seems promising to include representatives of all the involved persons into the executing team to recognize their experiences and their kinds of preferences. This has to be done in a way which is understandable and appreciative, showing esteem for the others. This manner of extending the team of usual experts by situative experts can be termed bottom-up approach. In this usage of the term bottom-up this is not the opposite to top-down but  is reflecting the extend in which members of a society are included insofar they are affected by the results of a process.


Societies in the past and the present occur in a great variety of value systems, organizational structures, systems of power etc.  Engineering processes within a society  are depending completely on the available resources of a society and of its value systems.

The population dynamics, the needs and wishes of the people, the real territories, the climate, housing, traffic, and many different things are constantly producing demands to be solved if life shall be able and continue during the course of time.

The self-understanding and the self-management of societies is crucial for their ability to used engineering to improve life. This deserves communication and education to a sufficient extend, appropriate public rules of management, otherwise the necessary understanding and the freedom to act is lacking to use engineering  in the right way.


Without communication no common constructive process can happen. Communication happens according to many  implicit rules compressed in the formula who when can speak how about what with whom etc. Communication enables cognitive processes of for instance  understanding, explanations, lines of arguments.  Especially important for survival is the ability to make true descriptions and the ability to decide whether a statement is true or not. Without this basic ability communication will break down, coordination will break down, life will break down.

The basic discipline to clarify the rules and conditions of true communication, of cognition in general, is called Philosophy. All the more modern empirical disciplines are specializations of the general scope of Philosophy and it is Philosophy which integrates all the special disciplines in one, coherent framework (this is the ideal; actually we are far from this ideal).

Thus to describe the process of engineering driven by different kinds of actors which are coordinating themselves by communication is primarily the task of philosophy with all their sub-disciplines.

Thus some of the topics of Philosophy are language, text, theory, verification of a  theory, functions within theories as algorithms, computation in general, inferences of true statements from given theories, and the like.

In this text I apply Philosophy as far as necessary. Especially I am introducing a new process model extending the classical systems engineering approach by including the driving actors explicitly in the formal representation of the process. Learning machines are included as standard tools to improve human thinking and communication. You can name this Augmented Social Learning Systems (ASLS). Compared to the wording Augmented Intelligence (AI) (as used for instance by the IBM marketing) the ASLS concept stresses that the primary point of reference are the biological systems which created and create machine intelligence as a new tool to enhance biological intelligence as part of biological learning systems. Compared to the wording Collective Intelligence (CI) (as propagated by the MIT, especially by Thomas W.Malone and colleagues) the spirit of the CI concept seems to be   similar, but perhaps only a weak similarity.


eJournal:, ISSN 2567-6458

Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch


Draft version 22.June 2018

Update 26.June 2018 (Chapter AS-AM Summary)

Update 4.July 2018 (Chapter 4 Actor Model; improving the terminology of environments with actors, actors as input-output systems, basic and real interface, a first typology of input-output systems…)

Update 17.July 2018 (Preface, Introduction new)

Update 19.July 2018 (Introduction final paragraph!, new chapters!)

Update 20.July 2018 (Disentanglement of chapter ‘Simulation & Verification’ into two independent chapters; corrections in the chapter ‘Introduction’; corrections in chapter ‘AAI Analysis’; extracting ‘Simulation’ from chapter ‘Actor Story’ to new chapter ‘Simulation’; New chapter ‘Simulation’; Rewriting of chapter ‘Looking Forward’)

Update 22.July 2018 (Rewriting the beginning of the chapter ‘Actor Story (AS)’, not completed; converting chapter ‘AS+AM Summary’ to ‘AS and AM Philosophy’, not completed)

Update 23.July 2018 (Attaching a new chapter with a Case Study illustrating an actor story (AS). This case study is still unfinished. It is a case study of  a real project!)

Update 7.August 2018 (Modifying chapter Actor Story, the introduction)

Update 8.August 2018 (Modifying chapter  AS as Text, Comic, Graph; especially section about the textual mode and the pictorial mode; first sketch for a mapping from the textual mode into the pictorial mode)

Update 9.August 2018 (Modification of the section ‘Mathematical Actor Story (MAS) in chapter 4).

Update 11.August 2018 (Improving chapter 3 ‘Actor Story; nearly complete rewriting of chapter 4 ‘AS as text, comic, graph’.)

Update 12.August 2018 (Minor corrections in the chapters 3+4)

Update 13.August 2018 (I am still catched by the chapters 3+4. In chapter  the cognitive structure of the actors has been further enhanced; in chapter 4 a complete example of a mathematical actor story could now been attached.)

Update 14.August 2018 (minor corrections to chapter 4 + 5; change-statements define for each state individual combinatorial spaces (a little bit like a quantum state); whether and how these spaces will be concretized/ realized depends completely from the participating actors)

Update 15.August 2018 (Canceled the appendix with the case study stub and replaced it with an overview for  a supporting software tool which is needed for the real usage of this theory. At the moment it is open who will write the software.)

Update 2.October 2018 (Configuring the whole book now with 3 parts: I. Theory, II. Application, III. Software. Gerd has his focus on part I, Zeynep will focus on part II and ‘somebody’ will focus on part III (in the worst case we will — nevertheless — have a minimal version :-)). For a first quick overview about everything read the ‘Preface’ and the ‘Introduction’.

Update 4.November 2018 (Rewriting the Introduction (and some minor corrections in the Preface). The idea of the rewriting was to address all the topics which will be discussed in the book and pointing out to the logical connections between them. This induces some wrong links in the following chapters, which are not yet updated. Some chapters are yet completely missing. But to improve the clearness of the focus and the logical inter-dependencies helps to elaborate the missing texts a lot. Another change is the wording of the title. Until now it is difficult to find a title which is exactly matching the content. The new proposal shows the focus ‘AAI’ but lists the keywords of the main topics within AAA analysis because these topics are usually not necessarily associated with AAI.)

ACTOR-ACTOR INTERACTION [AAI]. An Actor Centered Approach to Problem Solving. Combining Engineering and Philosophy




BACKGROUND INFORMATION 19.Dec.2018: Application domain ‘Communal Planning and e-Gaming’

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 24.Dec.2018: The AAI-paradigm and Quantum Logic

PRE-VIEW: NEW EXPANDED AAI THEORY 23.January 2019: Outline of the new expanded  AAI Paradigm. Before re-writing the main text with these ideas the new advanced AAI theory will first be tested during the summer 2019 within a lecture with student teams as well as in  several workshops outside the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences with members of different institutions.

AASE – Actor-Actor Systems Engineering. Theory & Applications. Micro-Edition (Vers.9)

eJournal:, ISSN 2567-6458
13.June  2018
Authors: Gerd Doeben-Henisch, Zeynep Tuncer,  Louwrence Erasmus



1 History: From HCI to AAI …
2 Different Views …
3 Philosophy of the AAI-Expert …
4 Problem (Document) …
5 Check for Analysis …
6 AAI-Analysis …
6.1 Actor Story (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Textual Actor Story (TAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Pictorial Actor Story (PAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Mathematical Actor Story (MAS) . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4 Simulated Actor Story (SAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.5 Task Induced Actor Requirements (TAR) . . . . . . .
6.1.6 Actor Induced Actor Requirements (UAR) . . . . . .
6.1.7 Interface-Requirements and Interface-Design . . . .
6.2 Actor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Actor and Actor Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Actor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3 Actor as Input-Output System . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Learning Input-Output Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.5 General AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.6 Sound Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.7 Special AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.8 Hypothetical Model of a User – The GOMS Paradigm
6.2.9 Example: An Electronically Locked Door . . . . . . .
6.2.10 A GOMS Model Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.11 Further Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.12 Design Principles; Interface Design . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Simulation of Actor Models (AMs) within an Actor Story (AS) .
6.4 Assistive Actor-Demonstrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Approaching an Optimum Result . . . . .
7 What Comes Next: The Real System
7.1 Logical Design, Implementation, Validation . . . .
7.2 Conceptual Gap In Systems Engineering? . . .
8 The AASE-Paradigm …


This text is based on the the paper “AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Philosophy of Science View” from 3.Oct.2017 and version 11 of the paper “AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. An Example Template” and it   transforms these views in the new paradigm ‘Actor- Actor Systems Engineering’ understood as a theory as well as a paradigm for and infinite set of applications. In analogy to the slogan ’Object-Oriented Software Engineering (OO SWE)’ one can understand the new acronym AASE as a systems engineering approach where the actor-actor interactions are the base concepts for the whole engineering process. Furthermore it is a clear intention to view the topic AASE explicitly from the point of view of a theory (as understood in Philosophy of Science) as well as from the point of view of possible applications (as understood in systems engineering). Thus the classical term of Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) or even the older Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is now embedded within the new AASE approach. The same holds for the fuzzy discipline of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or the subset of AI called Machine Learning (ML). Although the AASE-approach is completely in its beginning one can already see how powerful this new conceptual framework  is.



ACTOR-ACTOR INTERACTION. Philosophy of the Actor

eJournal:, ISSN 2567-6458
16.March 2018
Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences (FRA-UAS)
Institut for New Media (INM, Frankfurt)



I   A Vision as a Problem to be Solved … 1
II   Language, Meaning & Ontology …  2
     II-A   Language Levels . . . . . . . . .  . . 2
     II-B  Common Empirical Matter .  . . . . . 2
     II-C   Perceptual Levels . . . . . . .  . . . . 3
     II-D   Space & Time . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 4
     II-E    Different Language Modes . . . 4
     II-F    Meaning of Expressions & Ontology … 4
     II-G   True Expressions . . . . . . .  . . . .  5
     II-H   The Congruence of Meaning  . . . .  5
III   Actor Algebra … 6
IV   World Algebra  … 7
V    How to continue … 8
VI References … 8


As preparation for this text one should read the chapter about the basic layout of an Actor-Actor Analysis (AAA) as part of an systems engineering process (SEP). In this text it will be described which internal conditions one has to assume for an actor who uses a language to talk about his observations oft he world to someone else in a verifiable way. Topics which are explained in this text are e.g. ’language’,’meaning’, ’ontology’, ’consciousness’, ’true utterance’, ’synonymous expression.

AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Toy-Example, No.1

eJournal:, ISSN 2567-6458

Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch


1 Problem ….. 3
2 AAI-Check ….. 3
3 Actor-Story (AS) …..  3
3.1 AS as a Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3.2 Translation of a Textual AS into a Formal AS …… 4
3.3 AS as a Formal Expression . . . . . . . . . .4
3.4 Translation of a Formal AS into a Pictorial AS… 5
4 Actor-Model (AM) …..  5
4.1 AM for the User as a Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .6
4.2 AM for the System as a Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 Combined AS and AM as a Text …..  6
5.1 AM as an Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6 Simulation …..  7
6.1 Simulating the AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
6.2 Simulating the AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
6.3 Simulating AS with AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7 Appendix: Formalisms ….. 8
7.1 Set of Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
7.2 Predicate Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8 Appendix: The Meaning of Expressions …11
8.1 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2 Changes by Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


Following the general concepts of the paper ’AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Philosophy of Science View’ from 3.Oct.2017 this paper illustrates a simple application where the difference as well as the
interaction between an actor story and several actor models is shown. The details of interface-design as well as the usability-testing are not part of this example.(This example replaces the paper with the title
’AAI – Case Study Actor Story with Actor Model. Simple Grid-Environment’ from 15.Nov.2017). One special point is the meaning of the formal expressions of the actor story.

Attention: This toy example is not yet in fully conformance with the newly published Case-Study-Template

To read the full text see PDF

Clearly, one can debate whether a ‘toy-example’ makes sens, but the complexity of the concepts in this AAI-approach is to great to illustrate these in the beginning  with a realistic example without loosing the idea. The author of the paper has tried many — also very advanced — versions in the last years and this is the first time that he himself has the feeling that at least the idea is now clear enough. And from teaching students it is very clear, if you cannot explain an idea in a toy-example you never will be able to apply it to real big problems…



Scientific Workplace For an Integrated Engineering of the Future
eJournal ISSN 2567-6458 (

Gerd Doeben-Henisch



A short story telling You, (i) how we interface the intelligent machines (IM) part with the actor-actor interaction (AAI) part, (ii) a first working definition of intelligent machines (IM) in this text, and (iii) defining intelligence and how one can this measure.


In this blog we see IM not isolated, as a stand alone endeavor, but as embedded in a discipline called actor-actor interaction (AAI)(Comment: For a more detailed description see the AAI-part in this blog). AAI investigates complex tasks and looks how different kinds of actors are interacting in these contexts with technical systems. As far as the participating systems have been technical systems one spoke here of a system interface (SI) as that part of a technical system, which is interacting with the human actor. In the case of biological systems (mostly humans, but it could be animals as well), one spoke of the user interface (UI). In this text we generalize both cases by the general concept of an actor — biological and non-biological –, which has some actor interface (ActI), and this actor interface embraces all properties which are relevant for the interactions of the actor.

For the analysis of the behavior of actors in such task-environments one can distinguish two important concepts: the actor story (AS) describing the context as an observable process, as well as different actor models (AM). Actor models are special extensions of an actor story because an actor model describes the observable behavior of actors as a behavior function (BF) with a set of assumptions about possible internal states of the actors. The assumptions about possible internal states (IS) are either completely arbitrary or empirically motivated.

The embedding of IM within AAI can be realized through the concept of an actor model (UM) and the actor story (AS). Whatever is important for something which is called an intelligent machine application (IMA) can be defined as an actor model within an actor story. This embedding of IM within AAI offers many advantages.

This has to be explained with some more details.

An Intelligent Machine (IM) in an Actor Story

Let us assume that there exists a mathematical-graph representation of an actor story written as AS_{L_{ε}}. Such a graph has nodes which represent situations. Formally these are sets of properties, probably more fine-grained by subsets which represent different kinds of actors embedded in this situation as well as different kinds of non-actors.

Actors can be classified (as introduced above) as either biological actors (BA) or non-biological actors (NBA). Both kinds of actors can — in another reading — be subsumed under the general term of input-output-systems (IO-SYS). An input-output system can be a learning system or non-learning. Another basic property is that of being intelligent or non-intelligent. Being a learning system and being an intelligent system is usually strongly connected, but this must not necessarily be so. Being a learning system can be associated with being non-intelligent and being intelligent can be connected with being non-learning.(cf. Figure 1)

Classification of input-output systems according to learning, intelligence and beeing biological or not biological
Classification of input-output systems according to learning, intelligence and being biological or non-biological

While biological systems are always learning and intelligent, one can find non-biological systems of all types: non-learning and non-intelligent, non-intelligent and learning, non-learning and intelligent, and learning and intelligent.

Learning System

To classify a system as a learning system this requires the general ability to change the behavior of this system in time thus that there exists a time-span (t1,t2) after which the behavior to certain critical stimuli has changed compared to the time before (cf. Shettleworth (1994)). From this requirement it follows, that a learning system is an input-output system with at least one internal state which can change. Thus we have the general assumption:

Def: Learning System (LS)

  1. LS(x) iff
  2. x=<I, O, IS, phi >
  3. phi: I x IS —> IS x O
  4. I := Input
  5. O := Output
  6. IS := Internal statesSome x is a learning system (LS) if it is a structure containing sets for input (I), Output (O), as well as internal states (IS). These sets are operated by a behavior function \phi which maps inputs and actual internal states to output as well as back to internal states. The set of possible learning functions is infinite.

    Intelligent System

    The term ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligence’ is until now not standardized. This means that everybody is using it at little bit arbitrarily.

    In this text we take the basic idea of a scientific usage of the term ‘intelligence’ from experimental psychology, which has developed clearly defined operational concepts since the end of the 19. Century which have been proved as quite stable in their empirical applications.\footnote{For an introduction in the field of psychological intelligence concepts see HilgardEt:1979, Rost:2009, Rost:2013

    The central idea of the psychological concept of the usage of the term ‘intelligence’ is to associate the usage of the term ‘intelligence’ with observable behavior of those actors, which shall be classified according defined methods of measurement.

    In the case of experimental psychology the actors have been biological systems, mainly humans, in the first years of the research school children of certain ages. Because nobody did know what ‘intelligence’ means ‘as such’ one agreed to accept the observable behavior of children in certain task environments as ‘manifestations’ of a ‘presupposed unknown intelligence’. Thus the ability of children to solve defined tasks in a certain defined manner became a norm for what is called ‘intelligence’. Solving the tasks in a certain time with less than a certain amount of errors was used as a ‘baseline’ and all behavior deviating from the baseline was ‘better’ or ‘poorer’.

    Thus the ‘content’ of the ‘meaning’ of the term ‘intelligence’ has been delegated to historical patterns of behavior which were common in a certain time-span in a certain geographical and cultural region.

    While these behavior patterns can change during the course of time the general method of measurement is invariant.

    In the time since then experimental psychology has modified and elaborated this first concept in some directions.

    One direction is the modification of the kind of tasks which are used for the tests. With regard to the cultural context one has modified the content, thereby looking to find such kinds of task which seem to be ‘invariant’ with regard to the presupposed intelligence factor. This is an ongoing process.

    The other direction is the focus on the actors as such. Because biological systems like humans change the development of their intelligence with age one has tried to find out ‘typical tasks for every age’. This too is an ongoing process.

    This history of experimental psychology gives very interesting examples how one can approach the problem of the usage and the measurement of some X which we call ‘intelligence’.

    In the context of an AAI-approach we have not only biological systems, but also non-biological systems. Thus most of the elaborated parameters of psychology for human actors are not general enough.

    One possible strategy to generalize the intelligence-paradigm of experimental psychology could be to ‘free’ the selection of task sets from the narrow human cultures of the past and require only ‘clearly defined task sets with defined interfaces and defined contexts’. All these tasks sets can be arranged either in one super-set or in a parametrized field of sets. The sum of all these sets defines then a space of possible behavior and associated with this a space of possible measurable intelligence.

    A task has then to be given as an actor story according to the AAI-paradigm. Such a specified actor story allows the formal definition of a complexity measure which can be used to measure the ‘amount of intelligence necessary to solve such a task’.

    With such a more general and extendable approach to the measurement of observable intelligence one can compare all kinds of systems with each other. With such an approach one can further show objectively, where biological and non-biological systems differ, where they are similar, and to which extend they differ.

    Measuring Intelligence by Actor Stories

    Presupposing actor stories (AS) (ideally formalized as mathematical graphs) on can define a first operational general measurement of intelligence.

    Def: Task-Intelligence of a task τ (TInt(τ))

        1. Every defined task τ represents a graph g with one shortest path pmin(τ)= π_{min} from a start node to a goal node.
        2. Every such shortest path π_{min} has a certain number of nodes path-nodes(π_{min})=ν.
        3. The number of solved nodes (ν_{solved}) can become related against the total number of nodes ν as ν_{solved}/ν. We take TInt(τ)= ν_{solved}/ν. It follows that TInt(τ) is between 0 and 1: 0 ≤ TInt(τ)≤ 1.
        4. To every task is attached a maximal duration Δ_{max}; all nodes which are solved within this maximal duration time Δ_{max} are declared as ‘solved’, all the others as ‘un-solved’.

    The usual case will require more than one task to be realized. Thus we introduce the concept of a task field (TF).

    Def: Task-Field of type x (TF_{x})
    Def: Task-Field Intelligence (TFInt)

    A task-field TF of type x includes a finite set of individual tasks like TF_{x} = { τ{x.1}, τ{x.2}, … , τ{x.n} } with n ≥ 2. The sum of all individual task intelligence values TInt(τ{x.i}) has to be normalized to 1, i.e. (TInt(τ{x.1}) + TInt(τ{x.2}) + … + TInt(τ{x.n}))/ n (with 0 in the nominator not allowed). Thus the value of the intelligence of a task field of type x TFInt(TF_{x}) is again in the domain of [0,1].

    Because the different tasks in a task field TF can be of different difficulty it should be possible to introduce some weighting for the individual task intelligence values. This should not change the general mechanism.

    Def: Combined Task-Fields (TF)

    In face of the huge variety of possible task fields in this world it can make sens to introduce more general layers by grouping task fields of different types together to larger combined fields, like TF_{x,…,z} = TF_{x} ∪ TF_{y} ∪ … ∪ TF_{z}. The task field intelligence TFInt of such combined task fields would be computed as before.

    Def: Omega Task-Field at time t (TF_{ω}(t))

    The most comprehensive assembly of such combinations shall here be called the Omega-Task-Field at time t TF_{ω}(t). This indicates the known maximum of intelligence measurements at that point of time.

    Measurement Comments

    With these assumptions the term intelligence will be restricted to clearly defined domains either to an individual task, to a task-field of type x, or to some grouped task-fields or being related to the actual omega task-field. In every such domain the intelligence value is in the realm of [0,1] or written as some value between 0 or 100%.

    Independent of the type of an actor — biological or not — one can measure the intelligence of such an actor with the same domains of defined tasks. As a result one can easily compare all known actors with regard to such defined task domains.

    Because the acting actors can be quite different by their input-output capabilities it follows that every actor has to organize some interface which enables him to use the defined task. There are no special restrictions to the format of such an interface, but there is one requirement which has to be observed strictly: the interface as such is not allowed to do any kind of computation beyond providing only the necessary input from the task domain or to provide the necessary output to the domain. Only then are the different tests able to reveal some difference between the different actors.

    If the tests show differences between certain types of actors with regard to a certain task or a task-field then this is a chance to develop smart assistive interfaces which can help the actor in question to overcome his weakness compared to the other type of actor. Thus this kind of measuring intelligence can be a strong supporter for a better world in the future.

    Another consequence of the differing intelligence values can be to look to the inner structure of an actor with weaker values and asking how one could improve his capabilities. This can be done e.g. by different kinds of trainings or by improving his system structures.