Tuesday, April 26, 2016

About internet search engines development

Internet offers lots of internet pages but all are not as good quality or as interesting as I would hope. Of the multitude of pages one finds just some recommended by search engines. So it is very important who develops internet search engines. Those should allow in a civilized way a good wide access to good quality information & other good quality content and should absolutely not be manipulative. So people with atendency to manipulation should be banned from messing with search engines. People working in the libraries have an education suited civilicedly to finding what one needs from among a large amount of information available. I think that they should get the task of developing search engines.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

I have had these views since I was 12 years old

When I was twelve years old and was building my own objective picture of the world, I among other things got to think that since feelings were during the evolution (or because god chose them during creation because they were) useful for humans and animals, so useful that they came to be a part of the basic structure of humans and animals, then as computers get developed with the help of objective thinking toward more and more useful, it will be useful to build computers too something essentially like feelings of humans and animals. Maybe some days or some weeks later I came to tell this thought to my parents as we discussed things academically objectively, like our parents valued, and my father caught the idea and my mother once again said that I should begin writing my objective thoughts down since they interest many and are of important subjects and surely objective and I am responsible enough for that. But she made the error of asking advice from psychologists whether a 12 year old girl can write objective thoughts. And so the psycholgists ruined my life: instead of writing objective thoughts about the world, they made me write a diary about social tangles, and around the same time we went to a journey to Japan, I was cut a boys' hair cut for ten years (even though I very much wanted to be girl like and my dream job was dance instructior or a singer, of academical things I was closest to philosophy), my mom chose for me some ten years my clothes to be like engineering opriented boys' clothes and some drops were put to my eyes to make it possible to buy my firsts eye glasses and I still wear classes (even though I admire wild animals and healthy weays of living). When I finished school, I was forced to secondary school which I suffered from, and after that to university to study physics and math, in which I never figured out anything on my own - except a philosophical view on the wave particle dualism, which you can find on my video channel. Autumn 1998 (when I was 27) I started writing about how the elements of healthy natural ways of living help work efficency (See a later verion at http://workandfreetime.blogspot.fi) but was interrupted by my final work in the university studies before gradiuation.December to March. In the change of March to April I once again got enormous problems about psychologists ruining my otherwise well running lifd, which I still have, just an enormous bunch of crimes.

I have always used several perspectives at the same time in my thinking, choosing the best option from each perspective or set of values separately but finding that it fits together with the other perspectives too and with their best options. So I did not think thatr being useful should be the only criterion for god choosing some feature in creation.

So these thoughts did not need secondary school or university studies but only the first five or six years of ordinary school for kids. I did not benefit from my further stidies at all. Much more I benefited from quitting the university and getting practise in a variety of practical things and having New Age books,music and poetry hobby, since those made me more intelligent, objectively so. (see for examplemy textsabout learning thinking skills: http://pikakoulu.blogspot.fi http://quickerlearning.blogspot.fi and the e-book at http://workandfreetime.blogspot.fi , lus my video playlists about learning rationality at http://www.youtube.com/khtervola .)

Monday, March 7, 2016

Of putting human oriented work to computers

Computers are not wise and do not observe much. So one cannot put a computer to a commanding or to a deciding role in things connected to humans. Much more likely one should program to computer thought structures and choices that are known to be good for many or for all, like bureaucrats' view that these things in individuals' lives need arranging, so we have figured out to offer these alternatives (that have typically been considered good) for arranging them and each person can freely choose from them an alternative for oneself, and change one's choise if one so wants - like work places, money support for different things in life, etc are offered. In addition one could put texts to computers offering information and good advice to help in choices.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Translation rights

It is ok to translate this blog and my texts on links from here, morally and objectively correctly to other languages. Please include the links to my book and to my thinking course at least in English.
But before you can make your translation available, you should check that it succeeds in communicating these things. The rationality of feelings is a subject that is difficult for most men. As the original English versions these texts communicate objective ideas, so if you are not good in objectivity or not good with new thoughts or do not have enough common sense to estimate everyday things like feelings, then please leave these texts untranslated and refer just to the original version of this blog.

Monday, July 6, 2015

A text in Finnish language

"Kädentaitojen tulevaisuus
Hei Kun tässä ihan toiselta pohjalta mietin elämäntapojen tulevaisuutta, niin hämmästyksekseni kädentaitojen rooli vaikutti tärkeältä tulevaisuudessa.
Tietokoneita rakennetaan insinööritaidon varassa. Ne osaavat laskea ja ainakin navigaattori myös lukea karttoja. Noiden taitojen varassa niille voidaan ohjelmoida fysiikkaa ja matematiikkaa yms koneenrakennusta, mikä tarkoittaa, että ajan myötä insinöörityöstä suurin osa siirtyy koneiden itsenäisesti tehtäväksi. Jäljelle jäävät maailman ymmärrystä ja käytännön taitoja sekä ihmisiin liittyviä taitoja vaativat koneiden kanssa tehtävät työt insinööritöistä. Eli tulevaisuus ei olisi insinööripainottainen vaan ihmiset joutuisivat pois konemaisista töistä kohti niitä tehtäviä, joissa ihmisen luonnollisesta kapasiteetista: käden taidoista, tunteista, sosiaalisuudesta, elämänviisaudesta, yhteiskunnan ymmärtämisestä, jne on eniten hyötyä. Tuollainen ihmisten vapauttaminen pois aivottomista konemaisista töistä on kai teknologian kehityksen tarkoitus, yksi niistä, vaikkei ole tähän mennessä siinä näytetty onnistuvan. Pitkällä tähtäimellä kehitys työnjakoon tietokoneiden konemaisen työn ja ihmisten ihmisille luonnollisia taitoja hyödyntävän työn välillä näyttäisi väistämättömältä luonnolliselta kehityskululta."

Sunday, May 3, 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. Misunderstandings of this type are common also between cultures and between groups of different types of people, for which the same approach in explaining helps at least somewhat.

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.

In making estimates of what different persons are like, it is important to know that the differencies from one person to another and from one cultural domain to another are huge in what kinds of things people see as necessary and what skills and values they cultivate. Responsible individuals typically see responsibilyt as necessary while unresponsible people typically don't think that they need to be responsible in practise at all. Typically things that get checked well get cultivated well and are correct, while skills and merits that are not properly checked do not get cultivated at all, so having a very moral aquiantage can cause a total lack of moral because some people assume mistakenly that the other one too would be at least somewhat moral.
People typically choose things and values and valuable points in things and not the style of things (except those who want to act that they have the merit of the thing with such style) or the exact form of things in each occasion. For example valuing good understanding and skill is different from wanting to look school like.

Often people mark new and distant aquiantages important if they think that they have somethuing valuable to learn from them. On the other hand they often mark close persons like parents and siblings merely as parts of the everyday environment, as parts of daily life and not as central figures to themselves because they do not think that they should associate more closely to learn from these persons their wisdom of life and skills. So in thinking there is the usual environment like a background and then there are spots of light where one wishes for extra emphazis for those things compared to the daily life in the past few years, and dark spots where one dearly wishes for much more distance to those persons, whether they are parts of the dauily life or not. At the same time one's aquiantages who wish to learn your skills or the skills of your parents etc, may mark your close relationships very important to them, much more important than you mark them to yourself. Often people search for things that they admire and when they spot some skill of that kind they may consider it very important to themselves even though it is just a glimpse from faraway.

Often people do not see the skills of others. High skill looks complex and without certain form, sensitive too. So high skill easily gets bypassed without noticing the person having such skills. On the other hand, stupid ones do things clumsily and with force, so they get easily noticed. So in estimating other people's skills one should not believe the clumsiest having average or even high skill. Instead the ordinary have average skill and the vague yet honestly superbly well working have highest skills.
What takes a large part of a person's capacity and is a major interest for the person, is usually clearly in sight in his/her looks. But what takes just a small part of a person's capacity to do well and is not a major interest for the person at that moment is not so much seen in his/her looks. Instead her/his life's major matters are seen in her/his looks.
Seen characteristics that do not look symphatic are often characteristics of some skill and not feelings, social ways or the like.

Often people search for position, but in fact it is either a big crime that destroys the living conditions or an obligation toward the society's common good without anything personally gained. What they in fact search is power to influence their own life, personal freedom and safety with good living possibilities. That is best given by the Finnish rule "Live and let others live!" which means that you are allowed to live completely freely as far as you do not unfairly disturb others from living completely freely without unfairly disturbing others.
Position is for certain deed only, separate for each deed and demands the support of moral, social ways and truth, since much of the influence is in people copying or in the effects, side effects and further consequencies of the things done and of who did what and how. So position isn't for actors but typically demands professional skill, diligence, moral and social ways suited for that subject in that high position. Some people notice who is an actor and refuse to give position, others notice lack of skill or quality or of suitable character and moral and lessen the psoition of an actor, and the socially not so skilled or not so experienced do not notice anything unusual and give normal position.

All people have social eye and treat different people differently, according to what they estimate the situation and the other person and their relationship to be like. So different people get a different kind of picture of what other people are like, since they see different sides of those people. So even if someone makes correct observations about humans, one cannot generalize them to pictures of those persons in all their social contact, since they all behave differently according to each situation and each person that they need, often copying something from the other one but different things from different persons and in different amounts. Instead one must picture each person separately with one's social contacts, if one needs such a picture. Often the characteristics of a person explain a quite large part of how he/she gets treaten and a picture of the society and of lives in general in different life situations for different types of characters explain another large part.

Often children and young men who do not have much social eye and not much experience of different ways of living and doing, think that all should have the same qualities, succeed as much as others and feel the same in doing something like the others. But that is not so because people are different. The character differencies are largely differencies in ways of doing, values, social tactics and situations of life, which largely determine how well they succeed in each thing, and these differencies are reflected in how they feel upon doing something. So the same for all is not objectively done. Instead one must allow room for noticing the differencies, because otherwise one cannot learn new skills from others.

In skills the basic level of skill is always needed. For some with a poor capacity happens that when they try advanced things they drop the basic level away and produce so fine sounding nonsense instead of skilled work. That is typical in demanding skills for liars and for those elder people who lack excercise in basic things. Such errors of course do not deserve the position of an expert worker or good quality work or the like but should be judged according to the basic level of skill used, especially the values respected and ones not respåected. Often high skill looks different from basic skill and that is no reason to think that it is nonsense. Instead one should ask for ground for the basci things and see how they are taken into account in the whole, and so with the higher skill levels too.

Often those who are fond of school or university are not very good at thinking but have memorized lots of book knowledge. They tend to consider that important and if one would copy from them, they would suggest "Just this, just these. " and "Just like this." which is an error because they are not good at making observations and so they do not know well where the edges of concepts are and how sure each thing is at each point of it's area of validity, how big it is at each point, how important it is at each point and how much emphazis it should be given at each point. So one should not copy from them exactly and not the form of things but only the knowledge of major points in some form or in another. Instead one should copy the exact form from much more skilled thinkers with practical common sense and insight and lots of experience.

When different people at different occasions discuss about social matters and about what is right and what is allowed, each of those conversations has a context and cannot be understood without it. It is also so that if someone gives advices about what is allowed and what is not, often the receiver does not understand or fully respect the reasons for the rules. Some people care about large scale matters and take care that large matters get well, while some others do not carry responsibility at all. There is a common European moral that should be always followed and other notices are kind of just additional remarks to it, not altering anything in it. Also common sense with a picture of the whole and good will should be respected, be a helping aid to the moral.
Often people are estimated among other things according to how wide area they should be allowed to affect. That area means the area they carry responsibility over. If it is just one person, it isn't anybody else but they themselves. If it is a large group, it means that in other things they may affect less widely.

Those who think most of some subject are usually not skilled in it. Either they are slow witted or not talented in it or they have some need unmet and that is why they spend time thinking of the subject, like the hungry tend to think of food and those who eat unhealthily may be obsessed with food thoughts, and like people when they run to some problem, spend time thinking about a solution to it. Instead those who think the subject through but do it very quickly among other things and do not spend time in the subject, typically know it well, especially if their understanding and ways of living tend to be good in such respects.

Via video phones and the like it is possible to be close to people whom one has not even met. So it is possible to learn from them in these encounters. But learning is connected to the social situation and too close contact obstructs one's understanding, at least the understanding of many. And so a more distant connection that is mostly seeing and hearing what the other one talks, does not have these obstructing social sensations and so teaches much better.

People are different and have in practise different needs. Those who are happy doing something or in living in a certain way, are happy because their needs are met and they do not long for much else, and that is a question of them being less demanding in that situation. So the happy ones cannot be a guide in how to arrange things for others too to be happy, quite oppisite. For making people happy one needs something like a bureaucrats' view: what needs do people have and how to meet those needs in their situations of life. So meeting needs is a much more complex thing than giving power to the most satisfied to the present conditions, which is kind of synonymous to not meeting the needs of others, to making them unhappy.

Human relationships are complex. People have different strenghts, likings and habits, so they offer different things. So the admirer of someone isn't typically an admirer of someone more skilled than that person or of some aquiantage in a higher position because of job, moral, charm or skill. Also skill, if it is much higher, produces a different style, and so those who admire some basic level of skill typically don't admire high skill in the same, at least do not like the looks of the much more skilled or their ways of doing and diligence.

Typically people do not fit ideally well together but instead find a comfortable distance in associating with each other. So if someone needs extra support, it has to be found in new aquiantages and not in investing extra in the old ones. Like-minded, likewise inclined and favourite groups and cultures are typically best for this. But even looking at the wide world, at least one's own country, is often better than investing in someone who was comfortable with the old situation or even then too close. Age, gender, etc are noobstruction to finding people who have time for you and will to assist in somewhat in something you need, be it conversation, help from more skilled or whatever.

Different women are often widely different. What is said about women in general, typically applies only to some quite small group of women with certain values or whatever. Also relatives are different, even though they may look similar and talk of similar subjects because they have associated a lot with each other for many years.

What fits one, does not fit others. So you cannot take something that you like a lot or that helps you in your life a lot (your safety arrangement or your favourite things) and put it to others since propably they cannot live with it, at least not well and not in the long run. Each thing has to be fitted to each individual, like you can see from clothes and from the good arrangement that people can with money buy anything they like or need.

The arrangements of the Finnish society,like the rule "Live and let others live" http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi/2012/10/live-and-let-others-live.html apply to all relationships, also to the closest reöationships, to relationships to people you do not care about and to relationships to foreigners and groups. These is no other rule for your mom, spouce or your enemy, instead all must follow the same rules. There is no special allowance because you mom/dad/spouce promised you something, instead the society's rules apply also to those relationships and to theirinfluence to the others via your behaviour.

All arrangements should be made according to sure thoughts, sure observations and feelings of persons concerned about the thing in question and not according to words, misunderstandings, unsure observations, wrong classifications, sabotaged communication, feelings about wrong things, feelings of outsiders, or the like.

Ainimals and even more unusual "persons" have their own rights which are determined the same way as human's rights: according to justice, skills and moral. A human does not overrule automatically animals, instead an animal with high skills and good moral can be in a deciding position, and an animal deciding about it's own life. One cannot replace another person, not even an animal, for example gaining his/her position, rights or social relationships. Instead each person has one's own skills, own position, own social relationships etc, and if she/he/it cannot do something that is her/his/it's task, someone with enough skills, knowledge and moral does it without gaining any rights etc of the original person supposed to do it.
Having a job or an education may cause that some task is given to that person, but that does not remove the need for good enough moral and high enough skills, knowledge etc for that task before one has the right to do that task. Otherwise the task needs to be given to others or left undone if there is no-one enough moral and enough skilled for that task.

Things ending poorly in some area typically means that those in a deciding position, or at least some of them, did not have enough skills or moral for that high position at all. Everybody at their right level of skill and moral in the hierargies brings a much much better result. Sometimes some, for example because they lack experience and should so stick to a more theoretical role, are in a too low position in some hierargy and so their skills do not enough respect in how things are done and so the whole suffers from the lack of emphazis on those skills.

Each human has a certain amount of understanding and a certain amount of good will and tolerance toward others. These naturally determine how much the individual notices of others. Trying to tell them more, without increasing their understanding and good will as much, typically produces the end result that the individual does not bear so much difficult(?) information about so different others and so becomes aggressive toward them on that part. So increasing knowledge or social eye artificially is not a good option and should be avoided.  Also decreasing artificially the amount an individual understands and notices with good will, removes that amount of support from the workings of the society and is not a good option.

Often a picture of the people in some group or area is needed, but people are complex, so what to pay attention to. Each person has a certain skill level in a variety of tasks and a sphere of life nowadays and these together determine which routes are good for the individual and which not, so they determine his/her values, a large part of his/her picture of the world and his/her attitudes. Since the skills of people are not perfect, they often rely on others and so their opinions and skill levels may vary from company to other. It matters to classify opinions of each person according to each company, how wide question it is in this company, what types of grounds he/she uses (social position, looks, practical thinking, cunning of certain type (whose), educated thoughts of certain professions or books or magazines, social bonding, not knowing, sensitivity etc), which ideals and goals are especially respected or well respected (like whom), how long do the opinions endure and in which types of company, are the others thinking large scale or small scale, which cultures they are relying on and what are the intentions of the cultures, etc. Then just add the rule "Live and let others live" and take social distance from opinions not according to the rule and prevent them from harming others, so you get the society work well together with the help of objective common sense with a picture of the whole.

Climate differencies affect life a lot. In heat one needs to be more relaxed and with a slow sloppy rythm while in cool one needs to be sporty and quick and look a lot and use the sense of atmospheres. These kinds of differencies affect thinking capacity, working capacity and the type of social friendliness: is it lazying, offering a meal or a bicycle trip for fun or whatever. These climate differencies are encoded in cultures and so a person coming from a widely different climate typically does not have the basic building elements of ordinary life, much less even children's skill level (for example always being more rational than lower classes in school demand from kids, so such level too should be always checked and not presupposed) in the main things done in a widely different climate. This would suggest a division of jobs between climate zones instead of a global culture. One can learn things from other cultures but in a different climate they have a different place in the daily life and in the workings of the society, for example because social relationships and work diligence are widely different in type. All things do not fit equally well to be learned in other cultures.

Some people, typically those in preferred groups considered more intelligent in the art of living, if they are allowed to decide about others, don't decide according to their greatest wisdom about what is wise in life and in the world.Instead they make caricatures of what the others are like. And like is typical for people not liking some style they emphasize where the others go wrong, kind of commanding them to be more like that picture, instead of finding a better alternative. Like practical people about academical people, like women about men, like arts oriented about those whose mothers liked engineering for them. That is of course against the point in giving extra rights to the wisest ones. All rights should be used fairly and morally. So if you are in a position as a wise person, you should pick wisest options and not just anything you happen to choose.

If people from different backgrounds associate with each other or if people use their personal not-at-all-educated views in estimating others, it is typical that extreme things are not believed in but dropped away as if they were severe errors. So in communicating to a wide group or to the social eye if someone you know, it is best to start with commonly agreed everyday picture of the world and such picture of people too. So if you are the best in something, communicate that you belong to one fifth or one tenth of your group in being most interested in such skills and most skilled in them too. Then within such group you can with the same tactic communicate more detailedly. Likewise the group should be such that the other person understands it, like Europeans, European women, roughly my age.

Each deed demands that one understands enough, knows enough, has enough skills and is responsible enough for that deed to affect so widely. So it is also in communication and media. The message transforms to something with a different picture of the world, different context, different values and different social ways and different level of skills as someone tells it to a new group. Such communication isn't always free of errors and so it's feedback should be aimed at the jurnalist, social person, actor or whoever delivers the message and not to the original source, unless those features are surely the original source's and not just something added by the person delivering the message.

A separate re,ark: A computer with a picture of the world does not turn upside-down, to opposite of it's original picture of the world without sabotaging it so point by point. Computer's picture of the world ought to be structured. It is not just a list of nonsense words and numerical values associated to them. Instead it is structures which consist of many parts, so that turning the parts to opposites breaks the whole to pieces instead of building it's opposite from them.

People do not learn from all who are more skilled than they are. Instead they learn from those whom they find interesting and who are better than they are but so near their own skill level that they notice the things of worth and manage to copy them quite easily. In addition one can learn from skilled teachers when they teach but not by copying their ways when they don't teach. So typically there isn't much that one could learn from the idol of one's idol even if one can learn much from one's idol. Besides, the dreams of one's forefigures are a different thing from their present job, present area of expertise. Dreams are connected to needs and a beginner needs different things than a guru, and in addition individuals have different needs and different skills, so even two equally skilled persons do not need the same things.

For a computer, for an outsider, for the too bored, for those who got only a glimpse, for the too stupid and for those of a too much different age it may be difficult to understand how things really are, what was a lie, what was a misunderstanding, what is the truth, what is likely and what is far away from how things should be. Then it isn't at all ok to guess. Instead one should refer to what is considered ok, and that is a wide group of things,a dn allow that. And on the other hand not allow anything that goes too much ashtray, however unusual it sounds. For that civilized ways, common sense like good quality objective thinking with a picture of the whole, civilized values and good moral are a good choise.

Some people prefer a man like style that they consider soldier like or objective even if it is just stiffness and knowledge learned in school. That is different from objectivity and is not a characteristic of objectivity. So it should not have any commanding power or any position as a rule to be obeyed. Instead objectivity itself, truth and moral - without demanding a certain style - should have the positions that they fairly deserve.

If things are run with the help of artificial arrangements like a computer network via thoughts, it isn't ok to react likewise if someone pours a pile of shit upon you. Instead you should behave civilizedly. Like with internet discussion groups, there are easily misunderstandings and very different kinds of people discussing without it being in sight. So even completely ok well motivated comments can look unsuitable and so the right reaction to unsuitable things isn't doing wrong oneself. Instead one should repeat in a wide context what is usually ok and why and what on the other hand is not allowed, so as to answer both possibilities without causing any extra harm. So one also should not make very detailed rules about how to do things but allow variation and arrange things on a general level according to the rule "Live and let others live" together with common sense.

Typically when it is a question of what is valued and what not and what is allowed and what not and which rights do groups have, people refer to wide groups like engineers or psychologists meaning all whose work or education is connected to those areas of knowledge and skill. They do not mean people with work titles including the word "engineer" or "psychologist" as such, instead they refer to wide group that includes all such professions from sociologists to mental health professionals and psychological consultants or from practical maintenance engineers to high tech engineering research. But those who temselves are of those professions may be inclined to take sides and claim that faults are only on a narrow group but that praise and high rights belong to the wide group, which of course is an intentional wrong interpretation of language and should not be allowed.

People who make borders to disicplines like straight lines are often burdened over their capacity and want to smallen so much the area that they need to pay attention to and carry responsibility over. They agree to let civilized ways and others to decide other things in the world and in their lives. So they are not commanding others to stay inside those borders, or they command but have not thought straight about the subject and their real intention is to smallen the amount of things to take into account for themselves.
For some peole it happens that they attack senselessly just about everything in some subject and that typically too means that they want to smallen radically their own sphere of action so that such demanding or too strange things or too different kind of people stay away from their life's circles. Such is often the case of getting tired to a foreign culture or too different sphere of interests that demands attentiuon and skills. They too often claim that they want position, but smaller sphere of influence containing only things of certain kind is called a lower position, not higher. If someone has position and everything goes ashtray under their influence, a much lower position, a much smaller sphere of influence for such person would solve the problem away.

If one wants to estimate how much of each thing would be best for each individual, the differencies are enermous. Different people are interested in different things and use mainly different areas of life. If one has a hobby that one likes but the neighbouring is not interested in such, not fond of such, then the one with a nice hobby practises it maybe three hours a week and thinks of it often, say five times a day or even more, and the neighbouring one not at all such things. That is a difference of 5 times 365 days a year which is about 1750 times a year compared to not voluntarily at all. And if one would have a dream job, maybe one would think of it a hundred times a day and the other one not at all. So the differencies are more than thousandfold in ordinary everyday life's usual subjects, like with a nice job that the other one is not interested in, the first one needs it 100 000 times more to be happy.

Human relationships are not symmetrical. What someone else is to oneself, is not necessarily at all the same as one oneself is to that person. This is clear when thinking of the elderly for kids or musicians for engineers, but applies to other relationships too, since all people are different and have different situations of life. So when someone considers someone elkse close to oneself, it is not necessarily at all so that one  would be close to that someone else, like one can understand from the relationships of moral people with evil people: the moral one is easy to accept near, while an evil person near is often impossible to bear.

People often suppose that one person or group cannot be better in something than all the rest together. But if one thinks for exampkle of a group in which only one has a certain enthusiastic hobby, it is quite clear that that one alone can achieve much more in that hobby than the rest together. But often it is so that the brightest ones of the group together with the one with the hobby could achieve even more. And if one thinks of cultures, they are similarly specialized to doffierent things, Finns can know more about sauna than the rest together.

Often people fond of some area of life, some values, culture or climate or group think that that group is the wisest, has chosen the best strategy and is so the most skilled and with most wisdom of life in questions that matter. They also often know the feelings and situations of life of the people in that group but not those of people in other groups. So they often make mistaken estimates that all should choose the same as they do in order to do better in life. But if you meet one kind of person, you trun that kind of side of yourself toward them, and for another kind of person another type of side, so typically the phenomena that people know well aren't as widely spread major questions of life as it seems. So for example people who come to Finland from warm climates often think that the best way to do well in Finland is to eat enermously much, while those who can live in Finland's climate feel better without eating unusually much. Also in other matters a lack of skill in living often is shown by valuing food as a source of good life, while those with much more skills in living value other things more, other things bring them better life. So relying on the experience of one group only in what is needed often does not give the right picture of who is skilled and who not.

If things go ashtray with people doing senseless completely unobjective things, one should check and mark clearly the basic things and the basic things in communication, like nationality, skill level, intentions, and in communication way of talking (objective fact language, exaggeration, detailed, negligient, lying, central things, additions, etc) that each participant supposes to be in use, likewise contexts, what things are conpared to, how sure things are, how wide areas of validity, etc.

In communication the message is different from style. You cannot notice from the style who listened to your message. Copying style relates to admiring greatly and to sexual interest and to wishes to be best friends. So style influence goes always to same persons even if you communicate to others. Someone not copying your style does not mean that they would not have catched the thoughts you communicated.
Great skill is a question of one's way of doing which is seen in style but acting style does not bring skill. Besides most people are not so skilled that stheir style would be well chosen fro the sake of skill. Instead it is better to do things in one's own ways and to cultivate things that are usually good for doing things healthily and well.
Being social with people doing different things often brings tuning to their tasks at hand and to their perspective which is a feature of communication skills and not of admiring, since one does better if one does things in one's own ways and just in communication and social situation uses somewhat the perspective of the other.
Fact communication is what is good if one is not an admirer, and good for admirers too I guess. But enemies should be kept away from getting much or personal information since they do not behave morally if they get too much assistance. But one does not need to be personal with others either when one does not want to. Civilized ways are most often followed by those with whom one gets along.

People turn toward others the side that is kind of at the same areas of life as the other person is fond of. They often also comment on things somewhat from the same perspective, somewhat same level of intelligence and skill and somewhat same view on human relationships as the other one, here like a pal or a younger person. So people if they copy from others behaviour and what is ok to say etc, often produce views about others or about life that are copied from others but that are more like the views of others about themselves than correct about anybody else than themselves. So people tend to say that others should have just the same amount of freedom and rights as they themselves have the right to, and they tend to think that others too need the same kind of life as they themselves do, and they tend to think that others are roughly as trustworthy as they themselves are on some side. But that is also partly a consequence of them talking mostly to people who like the areas of life that they temselves are specialized to, like when you on the street need to ask the road from someone there, you tend to pick someone who turns toward you and is easily reached socially, and so from a few persons seemingly randomly selected you pick maybe 20% that most like your way of life - and all of them are there because they like the things the district offers: high quality, low cost, certain professions, certain ways of life, certain values, certain ages, etc.

Usually problems do not get solved and people do not learn anything if you put them artificially to a too close contact. Instead they learn from a comfortable distance when they can keep their own ways all the time and see what is what and what they have use for and what they do not want to copy to their life. Often social observations from a too short distance are a mess, especially for the younger ones, for the more stiff ones and for those with less capacity, less experience of life and less liking for the other person's ways of living. A short piece in the news from a formal distance is often ok while getting to know very different supposed forefigures is nasty. Things on a very general level one can learn from but not things adapted to very different likings and needs.

Many people, especially men and academical people, often suppose that others do not speak objective language all the time, like is suited for the subject, occasion, persons discussing etc, like people typically choose way of talking and ways of thinking used in those occasions. So they make the erroneous judgement that they themselves can talk total nonsense, imagination, lies, evil things etc, as if all the rules of the society and all the rules of human relationships, moral and objectivity had been removed. So they cause lots of harm. They should be made to understand that malicious things and lies may affect things, may cause large effects and so they are not allowed. When there are such communication gaps, it often happens that nonsense and lies get taken as the real opinions of the persons, and as what they use their real position and profession to.

Some men or evil women think that women treat them peculiarly and would like to turn the situation around: "What would you think if I would treat you like that?". But those are typically situtations born out of the personal characteristics of the individuals and not some male-female opposite. The things left ununderstood in them are almost always questions of moral: all do not get as much rights, instead rights are determined according to justice. In order to gain a right to affect certain things you need to carry responsibility about them, otherwise you won't get the right.

Some people suppose that parents would be close relationships also for adults, but usually that is not so. Parents are no longer forefigures for an adult and not for teen either. Instead parents are forefigures for their younger colleagues and for those who admire their work. Those people consider your parents as a part of their identity, as something to grow toward. But already teens have other forefigures than their parents, they have other deams about adult life and grow to those directions.

Generally rights, obligations and areas of influence of each deed vary from one situation to another and from one person to another according to what is fair and follows common sense with a wide enough picture of the whole. But company, cunning, being tired, influences lately, drugs, pressure, customs in the society etc affect how well the individual does each thing at each occasion. So rights etc should not be given to a person but for each deed only. The deed demands enough skill and enough moral and good enough picture of the world. So basic skills that school seeks to teach are almost always demanded and should be checked. Likewise is there the need for moral without further cunning palns or intentions for future wrongdoings. On the other hand when these requirements are met, it is often fair to give rights to also persons who do not usually have such rights, like beginners taking part in some activity in a group witha teachwer. So rights etc should be given for each deed separately for each individual separately at each occasion and checked again and again and again that the person and the deed meet the requirements and not just faked some document or acted the person with the job or acted skilled or acted moral or acted honest.

All adults have not gone to school. All adults who travel to Europe have not gone to school either but may speak languages and be able to read and write. Likewise Europeans who try to solve some technical mess or social tangel may be without common sense and moral: "let us first throw these all away", "let us see if there is some way we can build the solution from these" and "if you did that to me, I will do something of the kind to you!". By passing things of signifigance ruins arrangements. Building some technical solution mindlessly from things meant for some other maybe unclear purpose just creates an enermous mess or tangle. Forgetting moral in a fight ruins the safety of arrangements. So the solution is that one should demand objective thinking of the level that is idea in school in Finland, or better, from all always for their arrangements to be valid, and demand also the level of moral that is the goal in school in Finland, or better, from all always in every arrangement.

Usually people have some kind of former idea of each kind of thing, some kind of picture of the world of each type of question. But typically such pictures are born from life in the living or from the media: of actually being in contact with people or their messages. Having computers with discussion boards etc makes widely different people meet, like one can hear about the social relationships of one's aquiantages. So what was a wide distance of the kind "I did not want to have anything to do with the subject and went home." turns to some  message about what is your opinion. People do not discuss a wide range of matters with everybody. Instead they pay attention to social cooperation, bonding, types of persons, grounps, values, social ways etc. Without the social information people do not fit together, at least not as well. So electronic discussion boards etc would need more integrated views on location, how wide the information, what is the way it is talked about, what role that sphere of life has in the individual's life: is it distant or close to the heart.

Typically people in Europe follow all the time some quite good level of understanding and often ways fitted to living in a society too. But when they are ill, tired, cold or for some other reason have a shortage of energy, they tend to be shortsighted and commanding others to help them in their immediate needs of the moment. Curing an energy shortage is often a question of getting well warm, taking care of meals and vitamins and getting energy from all the things in healthy natural ways of living that make one livelier, from sunshine, nature and sports to meeting friends, free time and religion. Also moral is important in this: your relationship to the society matters to your endurance.
Also too far fetched resemlance to someone leaves one without the shelter of familiar ways and common sense in making comparisons. Doupting others of high skill but different looks from oneself, leaves one without the support of high skill and to the company of the not skilled. Such feels like an energy shortage. Being agitated breaks the harmony in one's environment and in one's way of living the daily life and so brings an energy shortage. Associating with enemies leaves no room for one's ordinary life and the workings of the society, and brings so an energy shortage. Being malicious destroys the prequisites for living in a society and so destroys the ground for daily life in the society, and so brings an anergy shortage. Good moral cures these, for example following the rule "Live and let others live!".

When there is computers or unknown people or people from distant cultures taking care of things, one should not play with questions that are important major matters in the world or for some person or group, since misunderstandings are too common and their consequences may be huge and disastrous. So one should take all important matters always seriously and not play with them, instead one should say and write with common sense and objectivity what is generally a good course in such important matters, and play only with minor matters that cannot be confused with major matters.

When people with different level of understanding, different values and maybe different cultural backgrounds share the same environment, it is important to allow discussion about the grounds for different views and choises that people make. Since all do not share the same level of understanding, discussion of the quality of school would be a good option for a common language and learning, for example a discussion group in the internet or many of them.

Often people associate with different types of persons that others in the environment they were raised in. So claasifications do not go right if they are not made again and again with a large enough group of qualities. For the same reason individual level of skill in each kind of skill and values, diligence, moral, type os social relationships etc should be made clear. For example men are often talked about what women in general are like, but that means only women of their own nation, but they typically apply it to all women of the world and so it goes completely ashtray. Similarly men often take single words as goals and so the thoughts associated with them get completely wrong, and so things get wrong places, hugely wrong emphazis, wrong content, wrong values etc.

Typically if people are asked, whom they identify with, they do not answer the people with the same characteristics as them, but answer their idols and the people who have useful skills that they want to copy. So one cannot group people straightforwardly like this but merely classify a single individuals as a student of certain others.

When people are explained about what other people are like and what their skills are like, they are typically explained via how they could themselves learn such skills and where to find such experiences and such human encounters in their own life - instead of telling where the others find them. So to a man women would be explained via free time and men via work, not because the others would necessarily have more free time or work but because their ways to think resemble those found in free time or work. To a hungry person positive feelings would be explained by referring to ameal with conversation and to a not hungry person via freedom and concretical phenomena.

If someone does wrong but has some claim backing it up, one should allow room for discussion about it. It is generally good to mention why things are done in common sense like moral ways but if the others neglect moral and commonsense, they still may have some view with grounds and some group that they identify with in that, and so one should allow room for discussion however far from the ordinary ciuvilized point of view the other persons are. Just let them state their view with it's grounds and the ordinary European discussion skills help to raise the level of the thoughts and deeds.

Usually if people have some not so good sides, they maybe are talked to about the need to cultivate better qualities, so they may say that they too have decided to try to learn better habits etc, but in reality they have bad sides because they like such features, such sides to life and such level of skill, so most likely they will not follow in practise the intentions to cure such away.

Animals are often social and so their level of understanding and wisdom of life depends on whom they associate with just then. Especially this is seen as a big difference in the level of rationality of animal contacts in different cultures. In Finland wild animals, but also somewhat some pets, are very wise. So giving animals rights isn't giving them for nonsense but demands at least the same level of understanding and responsibility from those animals as from humans, typically the minimum taught in school for Finns.

If one isn't skilled at looking at things at a general level and being completely moral all the time in everything, all kinds of practical things seem to apply only to one individual and to each of the others it is different things that matter, different rules and often a different "game". Like if one is skilled or not, do one's values suit the thing in question, does one pay enough attention to it, does one depend on certain others to get such things done, how much, does one mix them with social matters or certain other areas of life, and so on. So one may be social, someone else interested in the thing in question, someone coming along just because one has to, etc, and so all of them have "different rules of the game" of course! For the more intelligent and moral it is still anyway that common sense with a picture of the whole and good moral determine the rights and obligations of each, the rules of the game for each and their position compared to others and to the things in question.

Being honest does not mean being open-minded about one's life. On the contrary: liars often feel that they can freely tell about their life since they can add some lies to it. Neither does being honest mean being stuck to what is agreed about. Those who are most stuck to habits or rules are those whose capacity isn't enough for such task, so they rely on advices and habits and do not have the energy or skill to figure out anything better. Honesty is often connected to having some rights or priviledges: saying honestly aloud things that are benefical for oneself. For that reason understanding brings honesty and moral: one sees how certain things are benefical and wants to support them even if it brings some smaller nuisance or whatever.

In reading classifications of people and things, that are made by others, if one does not agree with them, or thinks that there is some error in them about who is like what, one should not mess with the calssifications made by others. Instead one can neglect them and make one's own estimates on one's own words as far as one knows things for sure oneself, and mark up common sense like true grounds for them. Different people typically make estimates from different perspectives. For example someone estimates that boys are boys and girls are girls, while another estimates against some goal of being a human with characteristics from both sexes, and so estimates boys "not so far from a girl" and girls "not so far from a boy". So they make estimates of different things and presupose different amounts of ordinary information. If one would rearrange the observations of another, one would create only errors and typically cause serious wrongdoings by claiming to represents the views of all who estimated. Also the temptation to steal so position and rights from others would be too big for many.

Each culture has different skills, so the average of the human kind in most skills is about zero, which is much lower than what nations typically are, since they after all have their own strenghts with which to do well in the world.

When one skilled person thinks that some qualities would make his/her work better, and someone from another culture or with a background in different professions puts it into practise, for example by finding the right kind of person for that task, it is essential to make well sure that all the ordinary quality requirements of the first person's profession(s) and of his/her skill level are met. Since typically people with high skill could themselves benefit from other qualities without dropping away their ordinary skill level, but fetching persons with the additional qualities typically leaves the ordinary quality requirements totally away. Like for example the skilled searching for skilled and relaxed would bring a person who is relaxed and without any skills, relaxed by neglecting badly all work needed and all moral needed.

Often people think that others have deep depths that they do not tell about, and so if they are told something of others or about their human relationships, they claim that they should know more and that these things are more central, more intensive, more deciding and more clishee like love tales tahn what they were told. So if they have influence, they place peole unnaturally close to each other and add all kinds of more intensive relationships between aquiantages. That is of course not ok, not to be allowed, since one should not mess so with the lives of others. Often things go best ata civilized polite distance and not artificially near others. So people who add extra things by forcing to the relationships of others, should not be told anythings about such relationships, or at least not anything about the relationships of those persons.

If some rights are given for long periods of time, for example a job to do, and if one does not follow the quality guidelines and moral of the work rights, but does something else instead, then the work rights should be cancelled, at least cancelled for that deed, and if that is not possible right away, then it anyway must be done later on cancelling also past deeds.

If you do not have the skill or moral for some deed, you should leave it undone.

Life isn't necessarily tougher on the more sensitive ones. The sensitive ones are agile and can easily step around a puddle on the road or some difficulty in life, and so have it easier than others.

Usually people who honestly take part in some activity or social contact, make lots of common sense like observations and small deeds. But if someone else, for example a small kid taking part in order to get practise, if they are given the right to do the same things as others, things go ashtray, since things suited for one aren't usually suited for all and social relationships don't need extra persons messing with the relationships' details. Kids too can have rights on the same grounds as adults: skill, knowledge, good will, moral and taking all sides of things into account.

Also on social estimates one must always demand at least the level of objective rationality that is the idea in school, but here applied to also social things. So one must not mix people, not use obscure language or leave context unmentioned. One must not recognize people by single features as if one were reading a novel. Instead one must describe the situation, the context and estimate people in several different things objectively by their scales, like it makes sense in real world situations where it is impossible tochange the features of people from one to another just by mixing names orwho was wisest or the like.

The need of a good school education has been emphasized for several decades or even uch longer, and when one's parents are well educated, it is easier for their kids to learn such skills from them. So it seems in my eyes that the younger generations today are much more intelligent on the average than their grandparents used to be, even so that the most short-sighted criminally inclined in today's world are roughly as civilized as those of their grandparents' generation were who were with a good moral - which maybe was to get a profession and to try to behave civilizedly. And the brighter younger generation members are something like with a proper picture of the world and understanding to carry responsibiity about the major things in the world. So one cannot tune things to grandparents but must tune individually to each generation, and it may turn out that much of the deciding positions ought to go to the younger ones because of their better basic understanding, even though age brings via practise and experience of life more skills, but even so the youngergenerationsmight relateto  grandparents'generation as oldandnottothe history.

People's skill level should not be estimated on looks or by social sensations but by estimating the thoughts that the persons express: what is their quality, skill level and moral and can they clarify their points with good clarity. Usually there are three skill levels: ones not trying or not skilled at all who try to lie or just appear somehow convincing, for example by having just eaten a meal. Then there are those who try in school like ways and succeed in thoughts in a quite good quality but not much individual skill above what they have read from books.  Then there are those, for example some elderly people, some artists and some religious people who know the school like level well and have reached much above it on their own and who typically are very quick in their thoughts, very philosophical on some side and with wisdom of life and lots of common sense, feeling too. These last should be left room to live in, in their own style and in their own ways, since skillis a question of ways of doing and wisdom brings it's own emphazies, but on the other hand one should ask for clarifications according to schooled thinking before accepting someone so skilled, so as to avoid liars ruining things.

If something that someone claims does not sound true in your ears, that is no reason to think that the opposite is true, or orughly the opposite, like "not at all" turning to "massively". People are very different from each other and ground their lives on different things, so many things vary greatly from one group of people to another, so that if you don't understand the reasons why people make their choises, and that is typically a complex model, then you cannot estimate all to be alike or roughly alike or of some certain group. To "not at all" the nearest guess is "only a little", but even better would be for you to mark that you don't believe (and why you don't) and that your own estimate based on observations of that same things is such and such or that you don't have experience of that particular case and cannot make an estimate, unless you understand the thing for sure on a general level.

Genreally each person's understanding is only of certain things, how ever wide that area may be, and not of things outside that area. For some academical people and propably for some others too, things outside somethings that they have themselves read or heard from their pals or outside what they themselves are capable of they believe impossible also for others, even if the others had a different style telling that they abilities, characters etc are different. So they tend to shout over those other the louder the less they themselves understand, propably thinking that others cannot understand such either, but that aren't a proven thing and one should not interfere with things that one does not understand. The loudest command should be based on best understanding and not on worst. Neither should one restrict the rights of others because one oneself does not cultivate those areas of life.

Araranging things computer aidedly creates the danger that some people will add computer run figures among the real people. Generally areas that deeds affect should be determined by how wide area one carries responsibility over and what is one's level of skill in that. So doing things via computer figures would not affect that rule. On the other hand computer figures may be forbidden. One should not allow calling real people computer figures and taking their rights away because of that. People should be estimated by what they do and how they live, what is their moral and level of skill, and character too, and not by some arbitrary claims of some being computer figures. A computer figure in a situation like this isn't like a game, just a picture, instead  it is a criminal act aimed at robbing people their basic rights, and so the rules concerning computer figures should be made while keeping on eye on the possibility of outrageous lies about real people and groups of real people.

In getting a large group or a group of many nationalities work out well, one should classify views, influencies, people's countires of origin etc, first widely to right continent, then to right country, to right town, district, area and group in it, so that it is easy to follow which belongs where, what kinds of things they are tuned to, what they take into account and what not, etc.

Spying people from other countries via internet or the like, isn't as likely as it sounds, since people in other climates and with other ways of life and other cultures are often impossibly difficult to understand. For example all Asians may loo the same, however widely different countries they are from and however widely different types of persons. It is also most likely a lie that Africans would have superb social skills and spy Europeans successfully, since in Europe it is cool or cold and so all European ways produce lots of heat which is impossible to bear in Africa and even in air conditioned rooms very far from the natural ways of living which they are in Europe. So most likely spies are from one's own climate, but then too cultural differencies and differencies in real interests produce very different pictures of the world and different ways of living suited to taking care of different areas of life, and so it is difficult to understand other groups if one oneself isn't fond of their interests. Also if an African would come to Europe and spy Europeans, he or she would suffer from the cool and cold and most propably be constantly ina flu and stupid because of that and without shared way of life which would tell what is what. People of the same group as you and people with same interests as you, maybe with such background as you are are the ones who understand you most correct.

Some people claim other people's rights to themselves because of some social misperception. They seem to think like "Think, if I could be a person like him, do things like that this way like him. Would it be fine for me to be like that? I could then..., and I could ... Would I suit to be such?" They mistake the area of life to be determining in how one can behave and forget the level of skills, consideration toward others, values followed, character, type of relationship to others and what the relationship is like. Generally one can copy from the skilled good ways of doing things: which areas of life to emphasize in action, but not to copy very detailedly like acting. Each area of life tends to have it's own ways but in addition many other things affect, for example the above mentioned things.

People do not do the same things each one on one's personal style with personal looks. Instead if they look different, they are doing a different thing or the same thing in a different way for example with different values respected, and so they should be treated different ly like what is fair toward each and responsible too. So one should not allow tricks like lying always to look normal while lying, since if one appears a liar, propably one then is a liar, it isn't impossible for people to lie always.
There are different ways of paying attention to things. All are not just paying attention and equal but personal styles of some. Instead they mean that the person is doing a different thing and should be treated differently from the others. For example there is paying attention in an interfering way and messing with the lives of others, like criminally inclined tend to do in social matters with those with a softer style, and such messing with the lives of others should not be allowed. Then there is just using the senses, being aware, having a picture of the world, using the memory, thinking, listening to others talking, making social observations, refpecting in the light of one's experience of life, having an idea of the situation taht one is in, etc. and these ought to be allowed if they do not do a crime associated with tdoing them.

Tuesday, March 3, 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 http://paratiisiteoria.blogspot.fi/2013/09/paratiisissa-on-kaarme.html