A more pleasant sound for using the computer keyboard

"
110. The point of view of some men is very much according to education, kind of narrow and not so intelligent, not adapting to situations and not understanding the rest of the life in the society. It would be good to vary one's way of doing and one's way to approach things according to common sense and according to the situation: sometimes it is good to be practical, sometimes one needs a good memory, or educated thinking, common sense, motion, feelings or whatever suits the situation. Likewise when working it is good to notice the landscape of life at large with it'sphenomena: with it's social contacts, happenings, journeys, approaching holidays etc. Like that one can train one's common sense and one's understanding about life.
This way a more skilled person can learn to vary the rythm of writing on computer keyboard, so that one feels somehow more comfortable and the sound is nicer, better suited to other things to do and to listening one's own views."
From my text about healthy natural ways of living http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi/2015/11/healthy-ways-of-living.html

About me as a thinker

I have written about how I learned thinking as a child and about what I have written about (some e-books, 70 blogs, 1000 videos), at http://aboutmytexts.blogspot.fi/ .
There are lots of advices in learning thinking skills in my Finnish blog http://pikakoulu.blogspot.fi of which the thinking course is in English at http://quickerlearning.blogspot.fi . In addition there are English videos about learning intelligence in my old video chanel http://www.youtube.com/khtervola .

About humanoid robots

I was today around noon at the center of Savonlinna, which is a kind of medieval, arts, countryside and tourism oriented small town in Savo on eastern Finland. There walked aver a street an adult human, maybe Scottish or arts riented man, but walked in a way that resembled a NAO robot. A little bit later maybe the same person walked past me, walked very evenly and without properly taking social cantact, seemed to be with an atmosphere that was for some street but certainly not the right, and noticed clearly straight lines at the corners of houses but not much else. But I was thinking of robots, so maybe that's why so. Or then it was someone doing testing or practise for building a humanoid robot. Or it was a robot. Just behind her drove someone a bike very evenly, like one would imagine a robot to ride a bicycle. But on the other hand, robots are a subject that interests many. But it aren't nice to have such in the society. People form a complex network, a living organism kind of, interacting, relying on others, forming a pivcture of the world and picture of the situation that they are in. They rely both in others thinking and understandiong, and noticing things well like ahuman being, and they rely socially and emotionally, to live a good life, to get wiser, to build a better society, to grow in skills and style, to have friends too that they can rely on. And a robot does not offer such. It isn't good to misestimate a robot to be a human being. Animals are what we long for, cute, intelligent, wise, friendly, feeling and caring, kind of basic life that we long for, they do not have any of the drawbacks of robots. Even with actors there is the problem that one cannot rely on the other one for sure since maybe he/she just pretends. It aren't good to build a society with such pitfalls. If they come with having a tv, that is a reason to re-estimate, whether we need tv's so much, whether we should come back to the times of radio and photograpfs.
There are grounds for the choises in the human nature. In thoery one could teach tehm also to a robot. But the problem is that some want to use a robot a s a disguise for evil endeavours.
One can build strenght with a big group cooperating. That is s reason for cooperation, but on the other hadn all are not interested in strenght. But maybe one could check electroniccally, who is a robot and who noty.
Some people think that their job is idiotic, so they want to give it to a robot. But it should not be an acting robot. People need things to do. Maybe someone else would luike their job. I have written about learning talents and skills for one's dream job: http://nopeaoppisuus.blogspot.fi but it is in Finnish.
Some think taht pure rationality is fine. But humans can learn rationality: http://quickerlearning.blogspot.fi . The human nature fits together with the wish to be rational (even in outrageous cases, see http://workandfreetime.blogspot.fi the book at the first text entry).

The wish to build more compassionate characteristics  to ordinary computers can be one motivation for building humanoid robots. But then humanoid robots ought to look like their skill level and behaviour is, and not pretend any wiser.
Maybe engineers wanna see if they can take part in other areas of life, are their views wise enough, so they kind of think that the robot'slook too even if they are copied from humans on other professions, wouldsomehowreflect the level of engineers. But of course such detailed copying brings the impression of those other professions instead.  One can learn skills by the first text in my Finnish blog http://nopeaoppisuus.blogspot.fi .
Engineers' question seems to be: can a robot take part in everyday life? But the ordinary persons' question is: would a robot taking part in everyday life destroy much of the good sides and wisdom of everyday life? The problem is that robots are very stupid, especially in instinctual skills and wisdom & wisdom of life. So they ruin a lot. A stupid machine can be used, but it cannot be let operate by itself like a person with a good understanding and lots of good will.
Some maybe Russians and Asians think that education is somewhat robot like if they just memorized things and were forced to behave accordingly without understanding them. But humans still have common sense, social life and basic life at the level of the senses, some picture of the world, values, civilized ways and an idea of what they themselves are like and lots of communication skills. Robots are harmful largely because of their lack of communication skills: how can one stop a metallic robot which does not understand everyday language with emotional tones of voice, social content etc? The impression sis like a big metal sheet falling down with noise and sharp edges. One can maybe use such at the factory, but ordinary safety precautions require that not on the street or at homw at all.

What if technology's skills make us more stupid?

Human thinking ability needs landscape like views and maps. Driving a car teaches to think of things in a map like way as landscapes in which we live.
If we would have computer guided cars, we would most propably no longer think so much as maps, and so we would be much more stupid and irrational.
To some the same effect comes to some amount already beacuse of navigators. So it seems that portable map devices would be ok but not a navigator that chooses the route and gives advices.

Will there be the same kinf´d of effect from developing technology to replace other human like skills? Then it appears that some types of computer skills ought not be used fully in making life "easier" and much more stupid.
On the other hand, cars and books have made humand more intelligent. So maybe in such a direction lies the future of technology too.

Human recognition and human-computer interaction

Some piece of news sometime in the past years said that recognition of human emotions etc by computer is practised with actors. That is just insane: acting looks different from really doing. Of course human expressions, body language, looks and tones of voice & typical reactions should be copied from real people doing real thinsg and not just from actors with who-knows-what real intentions. What one could start from is basic things humans do like watching, listening, moving and practising sports, doing practical things. And in those there are easier parts and more difficult parts, successes and failures, so that one could learn such features from those - or from ordinary photograpfs. Then one could also understand differencies in ways of thinking: ways of using the sense of sight, remembering, going things through. If thing is done exactkly the same way, it gives the same result on anyone doing, I guess, so one does not need to understand each person separately but basic features well enough, very basic enough and that's it: all human endeavours, all ways of doing gone through objectively and detailedly.

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.

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 .)

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.

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.

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."

Virtual World: pictures of the world governing

28. June 2018
I moved the text to a new blog http://virtualpicturesoftheworld.blogspot.com , since it is so very long (153 points) already.


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.

1. 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.


...

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

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
http://workandfreetime.blogspot.fi and the book at a link from there
and the text World is of love http://healthilymoral.blogspot.fi
maybe also the end (about feelings and atmospheres in thinking) of the thinking course at http://quickerlearning.blogspot.fi

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 http://www.angelfire.com/planet/paradisewins/THOUSANDFOLD_INTELLIGENCE_AND_SKILL_EASILY.pdf might help.

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.

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.

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 http://2013paradise.blogspot.fi .
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.

Building dream level solutions

A quotation from a leter of mine:
"lots of room left for
positive imagination according to which one can years later build
something that becomes our future. Feeling, imagination, a structured
 picture, a technical scetch according to that and an engineer building
it: this way you make dreams real! It is a good way to do and to have
in the style the posters are written and pictured: the dream kind of
works as building instructions for making it real, so you get almost
 or even totally ideal solutions this way!"

Moral for computers more widely

Please read the first text of this blog for an easy version of computer moral that you could start with!
When one wants to build a more complex moral for a computer, one could read my book http://www.angelfire.com/planet/paradisewins/2013paradise.rtf . It is written so that it's truths could be easy for a theoretical physicist (or an engineer) to put to a computer programmable form. Just pick a box/block/term for each entity in the world, so that the computer can refer to the entity by using the term. The book is about rationally grounded selfishness-based moral.

A scetch: valuing music

There is an easy mechanical model that produces the beautiful view that what kind of music sings best is the wisest choice to choose:
All biological things function best when healthy and in a healthy relationship with the rest of the world which too should be perfectly healthy. If one defines health of artificial things as 1) fully functioning, 2) optimized toward several purposes at the same time (like endurancy, several tasks, learning ability etc., like the evolution or Go'sw wise planning did to living beings) and 3) used wisely = rationally in the light of one's whole objective picture of the world = meaningfully in the world. Then all functioning works best when all wholes are healthy. In the living beings the ideally healthy is most energetic, wise and happy: in learning to compose music one sees that such sings best. Of the artificial, the healthy we can use to make our lives and the wide world better: that too sings best of artificial things.
So when you hear beautiful music, you could ask: "Which things are so healthy here that they sound this beautiful?" That way a machine could understand your point of view. Maybe a machine too could learn to listen to music and to value it's beauty...