Max Pucher

Co-Founder and CTO, ISIS Papyrus Software
Wien (Vienna), Austria

About Max

Bio

Max J. Pucher has a 37 year background in enterprise IT and has given the future of BPM substantial coverage in his writing and speaking. He has published two novels and is co-author of 'Mastering The Unpredictable,' the first book to discuss Adaptive Case Management.

Max started his IT career with IBM where he worked for 15 years internationally – including 3 years in Saudi Arabia – in hardware engineering, consulting and sales. In 1988 he founded - and is the current Chief Architect of - ISIS Papyrus Software, which provides process and communication solutions to Fortune 1000 clients worldwide. He holds software patents in the arena of Artificial Intelligence for real-time machine learning for process mining that discovers complex user activity patterns representing ‘actionable knowledge’.

Because of his belief in social networking concepts he joined forces in 2010 with the co-founder of ACT! Mike Muhney. Together they founded VIPorbit Software International, Inc. to offer Mobile Cloud solutions with VIPorbit®, the only full-featured Mobile Contact Manager designed for the iPhone.

Specialties
content management, process management, business strategy, human learning, machine learning, artificial intelligence, rule systems, cognitive systems, complex adaptive systems, systemic thinking, quantum physics

Languages

English

Areas of Expertise

Content and Process management, Businsess Strategy and Execution, AI and Cognitive Systems, Complex Adaptive Systems, Machine versus Human Learning

An idea worth spreading

Human Intelligence is not reasonable, but solely driven by emotional intuition. Reasoning only happens after the fact. Therefore our current idea of AI is based on a completely wrong footing.

I'm passionate about

... designing technology that empowers humans ...

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
Edward, thanks for the reply. I think it is quite obvious what is meant by a 'supernaturalist' and they come in many flavours. I have no problem with such opinion as long as they have no problem with mine. I have made no such assertion that something would apply to everyone but yes, I did not explicitly allow for it. But I think there is little point in splitting hairs. My question was quite clear about the supernatural it is not fundamental because the supernatural only means that we have not yet a scientific explanation for it. I find a lot of plausibility in timeless actions at a distance in quantum physics, allowing many natural explanations for the supernatural. But the phenomenon as such are at a level that might stay out of reach of our certainty. It seems in fact that the essence of thus universe is about uncertainty. Many scientists take those thoughts as esoteric rubbish. That is their choice. if science can not explain the supernatural I wonder what means you use to 'look beyond'. If it is a purely mental exercise that can't be replicated it is an illusion of our brain that produces a huge amount of practical illusions each day. You treasury of truth is such an illusion. We know nothing. Exactly my point. So In everything I think and do I leave room for having a perception that is purely mine and possible not real and possibly not true at all. The supernatural would be inaccessible in this universe and thus not explainable but utterly irrelevant at the same time. A belief in the supernatural that is 'beyond science' is just that and nothing else. If science shouldn't look it means you want it to be mystical and unexplained for some personal reason. It would be pity to find out it is not supernatural. This is not meant as something personal. Just a discussion ... I would love to be convinced. So give it a try.
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
Edward, the most amazing thing is that people who believe in the supernatural are not willing to reconsider, while the majority of people who don't tend to continuously accept that they are learning something new. What makes someone believe that there is a supernatural phenomenon? As they experience that arrogance in their brain, it clearly is an illusion of that brain because without it they would not even be talking about it or communicating. Scientist talk about theory despite some plausibility, while supernaturalists who have not done anything to add to human knowledge are certain that they know it all. Absolutely amazing, or what else is the explanation?
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
There are many people who lose the ability to speak or understand sentences due to brain damage but they are still self-aware. But yes. language allows us to form a model of our world that we can rationally process and communicate about. Without it this contemplation between people would not be happening. People and animals are still self-aware and animals do not use the same kind of language that we have.
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
Bla Blabla: Your criticism is kind of ignorant. There is no such thing as proper spelling or punctuation. it is nothing but a convention. Language is much more defined by context than by its sentence structure. I feel that the question was clear enough.
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
No I don't think that consciousness can be replicated in the human sense, because consciousness is defined by what it feels like to have a brain inside a body. You can give it some other definition but then it is not human. We can make a machine behave as if it would have consciousness, but that does not mean it has it. In all effect, consciousness is an illusion that each person has about itself. It is strongly connected to feelings, which means the biochemical reactions of the body to its surroundings. The medula old-center brain has two parts and one passes bodily feelings to the brain and the other passes brain signals to create the sensation of being self-aware. So consciousness is not a higher-order functionality as it is really easy to lose it. The brain could still be connected to the universe in a larger energetic sense and handle the input intuitively. Joll Bolte reports on the amazing sensation of losing your rational self-image due to a stroke. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 2 years ago
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
It is always possible to allow or disallow certain perspectives when doing scientific research or contemplation. Our own preset beliefs will be the strongest form to shape our thoughts. Supernatural or metaphysical explanations only mean that we do not yet have a scientific explanation or theory for some phenomenon. That still does not mean that everything is definitely explainable. There is no such thing as fact or proof but only the plausibility of being probably approximately correct. Some science has very accurate predictability but only in the very near future at very close range i.e. Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. More time and space bring about the effects of resonant interaction between observers and observed systems and we lose that ability, causing many of the paradoxes. The LHC might show a probable Higgs particle because it was built to show it. We don't know what it really shows. It can only show things that conform to a mathematical model language we know. We can not know things we do not have a language for. We could consider it wrong, spurious or irrelevant. Random Monte Carlo walks are therefore used to find areas of probable particle signatures which conform to the model. Applying those thoughts to a scientific model of mind and brain we run into the same situation. We can not measure thoughts or picture mental images much as we can not see a Higgs particle. We can create a model (which we do not yet have) to describe mind and try to map it into the brain. But the brain is just a carrier and it is extremely complex due to its bio-chemical nature. The bio-electrical part in itself is utterly dysfunctional without the biochemistry. It is impossible to build a human-like artificial intelligence because it will not possess a human-like experience of self and it will lack the hormonal drives. I wrote a novel on the subject in 2003 (Deity - http://www.amazon.com/Deity-Max-J-Pucher/dp/0974100633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324896043&sr=8-1 )
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 4 years ago
Jared Diamond: Why do societies collapse?
Sarah, the one thing that won't work is a planned society. That is for arrogant, leftist intellectuals who think they know what is best for everyone else. That has been tried and failed with Communism. Natural concepts that follow an evolutionary path and that is democracy and free markets require money as their fuel. The right of an individual to the fruits of his labor are essential for a free society. The problem is one of size and has been mentioned.But huge governments and huge corporations together dominate our lives. So what must happen is to cut them down to size. It would be very simple if we simply stop to vote for people beloing to the large parties and stop to buy from global businesses. We could demand laws that stop the free movement of capital beyond a certain size. The other one is to put a limit to lawyers fees and to limit pro bono shares to max five times the real effort. Suddenly health care would be cheap ... So some rules of the game are necessary!
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 5 years ago
Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange
Felix, there is no such thing as truth. Everything we know is based on interpretation of information in a certain context. Change the context and the knowledge may disappear or change completely. Each question that science answers is asked with a certain presupposed context in place. The possible answers are defined by the context of the question. The axioms that form the theorem are the context. I am not saying that modern science is as illogical as religion, but that alone does not mean that science is objective. There is no such thing. Quantums uncertainty makes it impossible to know anything with certainty and the overall probability of measuring something is shaped by measuring apparatus used. Faith in God uses a set of axioms that allows the existence of God. But that does not mean that it is proof or that it in any way attributes the powers of creation to such an entity. Failure to disprove is not proof. A theorem that fits an experiment is NOT proof of its global applicability
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 5 years ago
Peter Donnelly: How juries are fooled by statistics
Decisionmaking by statistics can be fine, but the data have to be plausible, believable and understandable for people to use them sensibly. Gert Gigerenzer has been writing about human decisionmaking and how it maps to data we get. He found that typically we make better decisions with less data because we use our experience of data patterns.
141058
Max Pucher
Posted over 5 years ago
Tony Robbins: Why we do what we do
Robins is right about emotion. What he is wrong about that one can control the emotions. You can try to find all the reasons, all the models and all the targets you want. Emotions are created by your bio-chemistry and you can not influence that much. The six needs do influence your life but they will not change your emotions. He is a smart talker but he is not going to change people.