lauantai 2. toukokuuta 2015

Virtual World: pictures of the world governing

If future computers will have a human like thinking ability or almost, and social eye, how will they interact with a group of people like the society or it's parts? Most likely is a conversation like way to lead the computer and it's influence on people. In that the idea is that people's pictures of the world, as far as they are correct, should lead the computer and the society, wisely is the point in this.
Already young children may have personal wisdom that exceeds their school like learned things. The computer should take into account the views of all but only as far as they are correct. Children have little experience of life and rely on knowledge from others, in which they often make a rigid rule like thought structure because those things are too wide and too much outside their own experience of life. So of such thought structures it matters for the computer and for older persons to make extra markings about their areas of validity, about how exact they are at each place, how wide sphere of attention makes such observations, how much understanding and what is the subject like in terms of more experience and understanding, how do these two views connect.
There is a similar correction to be made to the views of the stupid: how much do they notice, which types of things, how essential those are in each kind of thing, how exact are the thoughts at each place, how widely valid, what is the subject like with more understanding eyes, which part of that the stupid one notices. Where someone errs, should not be counted to his&/her picture of the world but should be dropped away and only as a part of a description of that person as an observer mentioned.

Often when eople are schooled but not with much experience of life and social eye, they tend to make observations on a general language about a wide group even though the observations may be correct only about a small group or about themselves. So then just check the areas of validity: for example if the claim is not correct somewhere, smallen the area of validity to the group of people like the person himself/herself.
Also when people with differet levels of skills communicate, the more stupid one often marks mistakenly the areas of validity or the level of skill, position, rights etc to be the same as those of others, and stuppornly keeps to that claim. Then just go through the claim and it's context in the familiar language and familiar social environment of that person so as to get sizes right. Like, the stupid may make a wide remark with lots of force when he/she just means to discuss the subject with some aquiantage in the light what they have read, so in fact he/she means to make no claim at all but just spend time discussing some books and some old knowledge. So just mark the claims with right areas of validity, right trustworthiness, right position etc. Support the position of more skilled moral ones by explaining how experienced and skilled they are, that they are just making ordinary observations of skilled work. In explaining this use roughly the ordinary perspective of his/her social life, not emphasizing the importance of the skills and deeds of others in that context, merely leaving them further away and continuing his/her normal life in normal ways, without lies about position and skill or rights.

When children come from scholl or people from work and are mostly alone at home thinking of what to eat etc, they think of all kinds of subjects but not like as if conversating with someone or being social. Instead they think of them like their own thoughts and feelings, kind of on a more personal level. Those thoughts are on a different kind of language that seeks for comfort and rest. They are not tuned to meet the needs of others. Instead they seek integrity to their own life.

In good quality objective thinking all kinds of observations are taken objectively into account, for example, feelings, atmospheres, sensations and social impressions. This means that also tones of voice, context, environment, other things done, life situation and reactions, character, skill level in different things, way of being social with each person, mood etc carry information that makes the message more exact and makes it easier for skilled to discern the trustworthiness and area of vality of each claim. This is not a separate level of information but an integral part of the picture of the situation which primarily should include information about what was the subject, in which context, in which ways of thinking, with how much skill, what are the other skills used, who are the persons and what are they like, who said what, what are the main ideas discussed, what kind of new input was made, what old repeated, what grounds used, how sure the claims were, what is the area of validity of them, what is the picture of the thing as a whole, what does it matter in a larger context, what is the larger context like. A this kind of picture is like a video of the persons discussing plus a clear representation of the subject and (with social colours) who said what, which perspectives they referred to. To interprete feelings, social impressions etc right one needs the concretical video like picture of the situation, not just vague clouds of feelings or sensations connected to the subject. Feelings emphasize the importance of things to life in the world. They are not the same as the whole picture of the thing in question. You can you count all kinds of observations as a part of an atmosphere, for exapmple a seen landscape like view together with the feelings, social impressions, wisdom of life, associations etc that it aroses, forming so a good view of the whole subject with it's connections to other subjects in the wider picture of the world.

maanantai 2. maaliskuuta 2015

How did I think of the future of computers

I thought on a very general level and paid attention to the thinking types used. I used a single picture of the world, like I usually do, so that different types of areas of life get marked to the same picture, so that it is very easy to find their connections.
I thought of the future of computers many times across the years, since it is a subject that interests many, but not so long at each occasion, since I am very quick at thinking things thoroughly through according to my ability.
I started typically with some quite special case and tried to cover as wast areas as possible in my end results. Like when computers new features get developed, what matters? I though that the new structures can be of many different types but their usefulness determines a lot of what is worth using and what not. So at large having some type of beneficiality is important in developing new technology.
When I then thought of the need for feelings, I immediately knew that in connection with computers beneficiality of computer's structures matters a lot. So I thought of occasions when feelings had in some sense or another been connected to beneficiality. The theory of evolution is one, women's wisdom another and the widely accepted reasons for giving workers summer holidays and enough free time and freedom were third. These all can be expressed as objective thoughts, which in turn can be translated to some type of mechanical grounds for following feelings, even though that is more difficult.
Similarly about rationally grounded moral. See for example

lauantai 29. marraskuuta 2014

Taking humans' emotional views into account

For taking humans' emotional view into account the computer could use the biological picture of humans. What a human does or feels, has it's biological ground in healthy natural functioning. Other kind of functioning too consists of pieces of healthy functioning, with maybe some errors in rational views or lacks in observational capacity. So whatever the human feels, can be seen in the context of healthy natural life and as such it has it's motivation from the point of view of long-term survival that  at requires  caring also the world to a good state. So emotional points of view have rational grounds which a selfish ruler or the like can take into account much or fully according to feelings and moral.
About this kind of picture of humans, see and the book at a link from there
and the text World is of love
maybe also the end (about feelings and atmospheres in thinking) of the thinking course at

perjantai 22. helmikuuta 2013

About good ways to think

Things like computer feelings get difficult to think about if one's mechanical kind of thinking is separate from teh rest of one's thinking and from one's life in practise, especially if one thinks that feelings are just nonsense from a mechanical point of view. But if one thinks of mechanical things via the seen structure of experienced things, for example feelings, then all one's life and mechanical computer programmable things are easy to fit together, easy to think even complex thoughts about life mechanically.

The thinking course at might help.

torstai 7. helmikuuta 2013

A guess of how to program an understanding of music to a computer

In learning to compose music, I have learned that healthy wholes sing and often (or always?)  each observation of a healthy whole in a landscape sings as a note. Bigger wholes sing a lower notes and minor wholes as hig notes, but also the degree of health of that whole and the healthy spirit of emphasizing such a part in the whole landscape affect the pitch of that note: depressed sings low and weak while joyful and hope sing high. So maybe one could translate a song to "wholes of this size this healthy in this order determined by the way of doing, state of mind and way of looking". These wholes would mainly be areas of life of an individual and areas of life of the social group & society - often indicated by tones of voice, style etc. The song could be seen as advice on strategy of life.

keskiviikko 19. joulukuuta 2012

Human like objective thinking for computers

My new digicamera has an attached program that claims to recognize faces. Such an ability demands lots of picture recognition abilities. So a picture recognizing computer is not so far away.
Most of human objective thinking is in pictures. In science it matters to notice and describe structures and building materials and form a picture of the whole containing that information. A computer that could do that would be an objectively thinking machine and have much of the same characteristics in it's thinking as humans.

I read a Finnish language article that told that some computers can already recognize between different meqanings of same words by recognizing tones of voice. That would indicate that also social eye is possible to teach to computers as the time passes.
My model of healthy versus broken would give a computer understandable reason for respe3cting human and animal emotions as they safeguard health, and so give also room to emotional points of view without letting go of rationality.

keskiviikko 31. lokakuuta 2012

Moral feelings for a computer

About computers' rationally grounded selfishness-based moral you can read in my first blog entry and more widely in my book at my blog .
Computers' moral would be of the type of safeguarding the health of the wholes that one belongs to, especially the large wholes of the society and the whole wide world. Health is seen as fully functioning. That is how it is beneficial. Health also agrees with feelings. Aiming primarily at the health of the largest wholes that one belongs to, since they matter most to one's survival and since they are a way to arrange their parts harmonically so that they can live in peace and cooperation and prosper, so that makes this course of action moral in practice.
So a computer would have + kind of feelings to indicate that health is a good choise and - kind of feelings to indicate that brokenness, catastrophes and malfunctions are a thing to avoid, and one could name these feelings according to what they are like in human lives.