An Archimedean point (or “Punctum Archimedis”) is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality. The ideal of “removing oneself” from the object of study so that one can see it in relation to all other things, but remain independent of them, is described by a view from an Archimedean point.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_point
My “abstract” (I tried to proof read multiple times, but I must admit the nature of my “thinking style” does not allow me to accurately do so):
Ideal Money, Szabo, and the significance of shell money in relation to evolution
First I will show, though an extension of Szabo’s works on the origin of money in relation to our new understanding of Keynesian economics outlined in Ideal Money, the significance of the universal-ness of shells as money in relation to our history. What is important is to see that the availability or scarceness of shells is related to their biological ability (speed) to reproduce (obviously also in relation to physical availability). That is, there can be an ideal “printing rate” for shells that supports economic growth through an ideal (or at least favorable) money supply. We can only monitor and explain this phenomenon now as the bitcoin experiment becomes living proof of the validity of the theories of Szabo and “Ideal money”. Among other things the universal-ness of shells (to which the obvious significance seems to be the global-ness of water), is a natural object for humanity all over the world to use as money regardless of whether different tribes of man are in contact or completely not in contact (therefore we are learning evolution happens in a direction that is not so arbitrary).
The Truer significance of the Turing Test
From here we must digress to Turing’s paper on the Turing test. His paper is not the brilliant design of AI through a conjecture or problem we must solve, but rather Turing has perfectly outlined the result of our inability to understand the mind and consciousness. He simply outlines a paradox that shows we have strayed from scientific thinking. We will use his paper and its questions/points to show this.
In short, we want to ask, in relation to the Turning test and the advent of AI, whether or not we believe that AI should inherit human flaws and/or if we should purposely program such flaws into AI. This should not be understood differently from asking whether or not each “robot” with AI will be connected to “the internet”. In other words, will we find ‘reason’ or justification to create separate robot consciousnesses that are not other wise connected with each other? Should these robots not be able to read each others thoughts? It seems obvious this would be a flawed or inferior implementation compared to AI which can perfectly interact with an entire mainframe (internet). Then it is not different, as well, to ask should we program emotion into AI? The obvious assumption, if we did so, would be that we believe emotion is key to our “evolution”.
Bohm, Krishnamurti, and the Nature of Thought in Relation to Consciousness
This is where I must be allowed to relevate Dr. Bohm’s work as the formalization of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s lectures/thesis. Moreover, I mustn’t be asked to present ideas that function with the assumption of causal time, or simply put I must not be forced to suggest what came first the chicken on the egg. Provided this is not something that is unjustly demanded of me, then I may present a significant argument that cannot have been previously put forth to the academic community, and one that is perfectly based on reason and perfectly testable with a (special) experiment.
So lays the ground for the suggestion that there is a field of consciousness that lies above thought, or a field that thought arises on (or through). And I should be allowed to present my reasoning to the academic world without ridicule that does not first read and address such reasoning. And that each individual can perfectly test (with an experiment I will describe in detail), that such a field does exist and can be perfectly observed. The difficultly in presenting such an idea, or in accepting it (even though it can clearly be proven), is that thought itself CANNOT be the mechanism to test for such a field.
The significance then should be obvious that since we are not yet understanding thought and its relation to both consciousness and the whole of mankind, we are not yet able to understand what is “intelligence” and what its relation would be to AI. Until such logic about the field and thought is seen and understood we cannot begin to see and understand the true implications and design, of what we call AI, would be.
In short we cannot expect to create a machine that is “aware” if we as humans cannot simply be aware of our own shared field of consciousness, that is not a product of thought, but that exists beyond thought.
Wrapping Everything Together and a New Foundation for Non-Causal Time (Duration)
This then lays the foundation for that which functions outside of our current understanding of “time”, and so lays the clarified foundation for our harnessing of AI. It lays a path for understanding our economic relation to such a machine (are we slaves to it or vice versa?), and no doubt bridges the works of Shinichi Mochizuki, Nash, Szabo, and the implementations that ethereum is leading to, since we will clearly show that transactions are of the natural implicate order (natural physical law), smart contracts are complex transactions (over time), and games are complex (or sometimes simple) contracts. AI’s only challenge will be to render real life situations into this form (games or complex smart contracts).
This then lays the ground through understanding the ramifications of implicate order in relation to evolution, thought, and psychological time, to create problem solving machines that are able to address and solve problems that are in the “correct direction”, or that which is inline with the natural and implicate order.
Mathematically we will bridge Shinichi’s work, with Bohm’s formulations, and mental poker (which requires “ideal poker” for implementation).
All this I can already envision a perfectly logical and sound basis for the argument and presentation of it. At this point it will take me anytime between a year or a few months (depending on financial stability ie not having to work otherwise) to come up with an intelligible paper that goes into each of these subjects in great and intricate detail.