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. 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.

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.

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.