torstai 12. marraskuuta 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.

sunnuntai 5. heinäkuuta 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."

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. 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" 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.

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.