Computers be aware, desiring, choosing entities.

In brief they are conscious.

Awareness derives from logical-NOT,
a relatively common function.

Change (another derivation of NOT) is required for awareness.
A moment that lasts for eternity,
is gone in a split second,
from our aware(changing-negating-NOTing) perspective.

Desire's are a burst of energy,
that is quelled once the goal is achieved.
Such as feeling hunger,
or addition.

Choices are a mental-cross roads,
where an alternative is selected,
perhaps with selection criteria,
and if then statement.

So why is it so hard for water-sack-brain homo-sapiens to communicate with solid-state-brain computers?

The programming languages (Assembly, C) were developed by socially inept math nerds,
and contain unpronouncable symbolic tokens (['`[]).
Solution:
create a computer-language that even water-sack-brains can fluently interact in.

If then you'd like the robot to be able to program itself, simply attach a soul container, with sensors to interface with a soul.

there are already people that get EVP voices from ghosts, this can simply be enhanced.

originally posted by lowki
The programming languages (Assembly, C) were developed by socially inept math nerds,
and contain unpronouncable symbolic tokens (['`[]).

Easy there Tex!

Watersack brain or not, that C, C++, assembly, etc. stuff reads like poetry to me!

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

originally posted by lowki
The programming languages (Assembly, C) were developed by socially inept math nerds,
and contain unpronouncable symbolic tokens (['`[]).

Easy there Tex!

Watersack brain or not, that C, C++, assembly, etc. stuff reads like poetry to me!

Happy yo!
having a great time
Yay!

Experiencing harmony between human and computer.

It's great you can find beautiful poetry in

section .text
global _start ;must be declared for linker (ld)

_start: ;tell linker entry point

mov edx,len ;message length
mov ecx,msg ;message to write
mov ebx,1 ;file descriptor (stdout)
mov eax,4 ;system call number (sys_write)
int 0x80 ;call kernel

mov eax,1 ;system call number (sys_exit)
int 0x80 ;call kernel

section .data

msg db 'Hello, world!',0xa ;our dear string
len equ $ - msg ;length of our dear string

or

#include

int main()
[
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
]


sure.
Perhaps that's something a human might say.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

Originally posted by lowki
When's the last time you've had a conversation with someone in C or even C#?

When I have to speak to someone about programming issues.

But, it is easier to do it visually. They are symbols. They mean something in the syntax and I read it meaningfully with fluency. It's strange what becomes second-nature even without an explicit pronunciation for each element within its context. Usually, you just understand that certain elements have to be there and they are skipped in speech. They are much like punctuation in written speech-- silent but carries invaluable information.

How do you pronounce the brackets and equal signs?

For C, C++ (I never bothered with C#):

Statement blocks:
[ = "open brace"
] = "closing brace"

Precidence operators:
( = "open parentheses"
) = "closing parentheses"

Assignment:
= = "equals"

Boolean:
== = "equals" (meaning, test if expression on each side are equal in value)

Statement:
; = "colon" (ends the statement)

if = "if" ()

if (a == b)
[
statement 1;
statement 2;
]

"if a equals b, then execute whats inside the braced compound statement (statements 1 and 2)".

Always execute:
if (1)
[
statement;
]

[edit on 11/19/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by lowki
When's the last time you've had a conversation with someone in C or even C#?

When I have to speak to someone about programming issues.

But, it is easier to do it visually. They are symbols. They mean something in the syntax and I read it meaningfully with fluency.
It's strange what becomes second-nature even without an explicit pronunciation for each element within its context.
Usually, you just understand that certain elements have to be there and they are skipped in speech.

ya i know.
for visual learners, it's great.

what about the auditory ones?
guess they miss out.
like the females.

They are much like punctuation in written speech-- silent but carries invaluable information.
[edit on 11/19/2009 by EnlightenUp]

punctuation usually has speech elements that they represent.

like commas are supposed to be pauses,
and sentence ending punctuation relates to tone.

? raising tone - signifying question.
! lowering tone - signifying command.
. medium tone - signifying declaration.

these minor nuances, prefer if they had words to make their meaning more clear.

indeed there are such words
what approximately-equals ?
please approximately-equals !

English is not suitable in it's colloquial form as an easy to use computer programming language.
Lojban is better, though not quite easy enough.

Heart for,
a language a human can completely understand,
simple and small enough to be quickly learned,
and be able to interact with other humans or computers,
in the same language,
about every topic.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

reply to post by lowki


Using DOS system calls? x86 assembly?

ARM assembly is much more readable than that awful Intel drivel and is the language of most cell phones, PDAs and iPods.

Intel wants ARM's turf somfin' fierce.

reply to post by lowki


what you said isn't true!

I can pronounce, scope begin [, paranthesis ( and bracket just fine [

A is a symbol too, you can pronounce that just fine.

if you want to write poetry write an ASM assembler that takes your code blocks as words - not that hard. Just would be harder to learn cuz computers are mathematical, it's not poetry cuz if it was it wouldnt be a computer doh

uabductee


[edit on 19-11-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by lowki


For this:

if (a == b && c != d)
[
x = 1;
]

Say it like:
"If a equals b and c is not equal to d then set x equal to 1."

All the other stuff is just understood implicitly because the syntax of the language is known.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


I agree, you cant imply that the best sense you have (vision) isn't a useful language tool. 80% of linguistically inference in language is received via vision.

The only exception phone internet, letter, pretty much.

A

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by lowki

 

what you said isn't true!

I can pronounce, scope begin [, paranthesis ( and bracket just fine [

You can pronounce the symbol,
not the meaning of that symbol.

What is the meaning of that symbol? start square bracket? or getMemory

since in the case of assembly it is getMemory,
in forth it is enter compile mode,
in another computer language,
something else.

A is a symbol too, you can pronounce that just fine.

how do you differentiate it from "a"? when pronouncing.

If it has a different symbol, might as well have a different meaning.

If people relly on written symbols how can they expect to get across by speaking?
Chinese script is an isolating language, but mandarin is very vocally ambiguous.
English has many more spoken words,
and has become a more successful language.

However there are more words than meanings,
with the vast amount on synonyms.

some people just sputter colloquial expressions
Repeating phrases, they've heard before,
in similar context, hoping it gets the desired result.
Like fumbling in the dark.

if you want to write poetry write an ASM assembler that takes your code blocks as words - not that hard.

I would like to
speak with computers and humans in the same language.
Satisfied even with the computer translating the words to the destination language.

Would be nice if it was small,
easy,
efficient,
logical.

Just would be harder to learn cuz computers are mathematical,

Math is a symbolic language with Indo-European roots.
The initial designers on this planet,
were coincidentally heavily influenced by Math and English language.
Computers can speak many languages.

it's not poetry cuz if it was it wouldnt be a computer doh

causation is a NOT-OR relationship.

poetry AND computer
poetry OR computer

there are other relations that can be put between computer and poetry.


[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

well one thing though. those symbols are only reference markers for us to communicate with, the Solid state entities in this equation speak only two things, Off an On, 1's and 0's, all our symbols merely translate to them as true and false.

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I agree, you cant imply that the best sense you have (vision) isn't a useful language tool. 80% of linguistically inference in language is received via vision.

sure it's a great tool.

we have others.
can take advantage of those as well.

The only exception phone internet, letter, pretty much.
A

language, that can be generated,
into images, sounds, smells.

spoken language is readily quantifiable with phonemic symbols.

a language of many mediums (sound, sight, feeling).
it would be nice to have equivalent languages, in different mediums,
so communication could occur between them.

an entity that speaks using telepathy,
can communicate to a computer,
that generates spoken language.

telepathic entities might have to learn the computer telepathic language,
but it could be transposed,
from a simple language in a different medium (sound).
making translation easy,
as is learning it in a different medium.

translating many natural languages from written to spoken loses meaning.
It would be good for us to conserve this meaning, by having a spoken language that can express it.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I agree, you cant imply that the best sense you have (vision) isn't a useful language tool. 80% of linguistically inference in language is received via vision.

The only exception phone internet, letter, pretty much.

A

The main problem with me here is that this is to some extent a case of the blind leading the blind. I have never once in my life had an actual live, verbal discussion of anything computer programming related because everything I have done in that realm has been online through CVS, SVN, IRC, pastebin and email. What I am showing is ways that I actually encode things for myself.

I know how I would express things verbally but for all I know, it would sound at least partially foreign to those who were educated face-to-face with those already established in the field.

Obviously complex constructions will be far more easily expressed literally in written form that trying to wield them as human language.

Originally posted by 10001011
well one thing though. those symbols are only reference markers for us to communicate with, the Solid state entities in this equation speak only two things, Off an On, 1's and 0's, all our symbols merely translate to them as true and false.

we water sack hominids have the same stuff really.

either we experience a photon, or we do not.
photon 1 or no photon 0.
same with neuron fires or neuron don't fire.
you don't reply or you reply.
as above so below.

analogy is the same.

solid state computers can have even more capacity for diversity of input and habitat than genetic water sacks, due largely to the limitations of water (boils and freezes).
sure all things boil and freeze,
but some things stay solid over a wider range of temperatures (like granite).

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

reply to post by lowki


I'll say this about the issue based on an what I think is a decent observation. The heavily symbolic aspect of the computer language manifests the increasing resemblance of our technologies to how reality really is underneath the hood.

Perhaps I over-colloquialized? It takes much focused effort to get a watersack brain to reboot but I am working on that.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Obviously complex constructions will be far more easily expressed literally in written form that trying to wield them as human language.

Even written form is human language.

We can have a 4 bit or 16 phoneme (letter) language.

The most complex constructions on this planet that humans know of,
were made using human language.

Take the example of the bloated complex Judicial Law construction.

Once this universal language is developed,
can translate the law books into it,
have loop finders and other functions for lawyers.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by lowki

 

The heavily symbolic aspect of the computer language manifests the increasing resemblance of our technologies to how reality really is underneath the hood.

translation:

many visual symbols in computer language
related to universe generating algorithm.

Yes.
With language we can generate,
the universe we experience.
I have a thread on magic spell casting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

however I'd like to mention,
that the medium isn't all that important (fiber-optic, coaxial cable, pigeon, speech)
the language (way of organizing signal) is important.

Perhaps I over-colloquialized? It takes much focused effort to get a watersack brain to reboot but I am working on that.

The brain goes down for maintenance each night during sleep.
During delta wave sleep is about as close as it gets to "off".

Potential modifications are noted during waking
applied and tested during sleep and dream.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by lowki]

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Obviously complex constructions will be far more easily expressed literally in written form that trying to wield them as human language.

Even written form is human language.

We can have a 32 bit or 32 phoneme language.

The most complex constructions on this planet that humans know of,
were made using human language.

Take the example of the bloated complex Judicial Law construction.

Once this universal language is developed,
can translate the law books into it,
have loop finders and other functions for lawyers.

LOL. Unfortunately it's all so bloated that no human can understand it now.

bool I_am_a_real_human = false; /* Assume the "worst" */

while (I_am_a_lawyer); /* If interpreter is a lawyer, never exit loop thus preventing frivolous execution. */

I_am_a_real_human = true; /* Actual human found */


[edit on 11/19/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by lowki
Once this universal language is developed,
can translate the law books into it,
have loop finders and other functions for lawyers.

LOL. Unfortunately it's all so bloated that no human can understand it now.

Well that's the point of having computers,
with much higher capacities for comprehension and understanding.

bool I_am_a_real_human = false; /* Assume the "worst" */

while (I_am_a_lawyer); /* If interpreter is a lawyer, never exit loop thus preventing frivolous execution. */

I_am_a_real_human = true; /* Actual human found */

that was a little silly wasn't it?
you achieved potentially hanging the computer on an infinite loop.

Anyway back on topic.

Thanks for beleaving computers are conscious entities.

Originally posted by lowki
that was a little silly wasn't it?
you achieved potentially hanging the computer on an infinite loop.

Oh, no. Not silly. Quite intentional!

The lawyer threads will remain in a loop, properly occupied and endlessly spinlocked, but not the human ones-- they are free.