To Roger and Rick
>From Erin
I wanted to respond to Roger's question of whether I thought there is any new
knowledge gained (you asked this a while back I wasn't sure of my answer yet)
and to Rick's question of what I meant by this third element stuff (relates to
concepts without an opposite).
I found a site that expressed on someone's website that seemed to answer both
questions. (I wish I could take credit for expressing these words but I can't
I lifted them off a website. I like it because it explains it both for someone
who is versed in programming and someone who is isnt. I cut bits out but it is
still a little long sorry.
Sensory/semantic communication
Don't take it for granted though, that if everyone'd simply speak English,
the problem would be solved. Take a look at the meanings of words such as
'yes' and 'no'. Their meanings are as much expressed by how we use our voice,
and how we pose our body as by the letters that make them up.
There is a solution to this problem, and that solution is called LOGIC.
However, logic may be absolute, but it is not a form of communication. In
order to convey something, you'd still need a language which is fool-proof.
The only 'logical' candidate would be the binary language. Contrary to analog
(organic) languages, the binary language consists of absolutes. It's either 1
or 0, so confusion is out of the question. Unless you don't know how to
communicate in binary, that is.
As sense seems to be of paramount importance defining some form of
universal communication protocol would seem to be the only thing one can do.
Since sentient life bases it's intentions not only on it's mental, but also on
it's physical needs, universal communication should depict differences,
changes and movements within a physical reality. In a way, most languages
already do, but everyone seems to have forgotten how to read these
languages...
Also considering for a moment that most of the physical world is made up out
of sound and vision (which are both wave-forms), AND considering that the
spoken word manifests itself as sound... well, there can be only one
conclusion: although only thinking is required to exist, it takes
communication to exist in a physical sense of the word. Communication consists
of exchanging ideas, and ideas consist of concepts, facets, and aspects.
Communication in a physical world therefore consist of exchanging concepts,
facets, and aspects related to that physical world itself.
For example, the physical world as perceived by a human consists of three
space dimensions and one time dimension. Physical objects within this world
are built up out of particles, and thus the language used to interact within
this world should accurately depict intended movement or alteration of groups
of particles (objects) in relation to other groups of particles (environments
and other objects).
Object Orientated Meta-thinking
Growing up with computers all around does have certain advantages. The fact
that the basics of your language are determined by universal constants for
example. And that you're using the same logic in different situations, despite
emotions and otherwise distracting factors.
Think about unity for a moment. Unity, as in complete and total one-ness.
Whereas 'The One' is EVERYTHING (and NOTHING for that matter). If you would
divide this 'whatever' into two parts, these two parts would, together, still
be the entire existence... The sum of everything contained within existence
equals existence itself. And as everything originated from this common base,
the most absolute of beings, this would automatically indicate that everything
is interconnected in some way as well.
In short, as is also mentioned in Genesis, the One divided itself up into
two parts, which automatically creates a third, namely that which lies between
those two parts... that which is neither of those two parts, yet that which is
both as well... From these parts you can make infinitely complex tree's of
sub-parts and categories. Anyone familiar with, for example, LambdaMOO
programming will know that there is one engine, a couple of generic objects,
and the rest is constructed using these parts, grouping them, and so on...
For those who've never programmed in an object orientated language (or have
never done any programming at all), I'll try to explain it in a little bit
more down to Earth way. Imagine you have a bag full of sea-shells. If you were
going to try and remember what these shells look like, you'd have to take a
look at them first. You'd notice that no two shells are EXACTLY the same, yet
you'd agree with me that they're all quite undeniably sea-shells. You'd know
this because all those sea-shells have certain generic properties; properties
that apply to all of them. This is the common root, which makes it possible
for you to recognise them for what they are.
Sticking to the sea-shells for a moment, imagine that you'd try to remember
each individual sea-shell without any reference to the other ones. Maybe this
is a little hard to imagine unless you'd compare it with the memory of a
computer again. If you'd scan all the seperate sea-shells and store them on
your hard-disk, your hard-disk would be full before you know it. However, if
you'd only store the genetic properties that apply to ALL sea-shells, you
could store the individual shells using something programmers call
'inheritance'. This means that a new object is created that 'inherits' all
it's properties from it's 'parent', in this case the generic sea-shell. This
saves a whole lot of memory, since the 'child'-shell would only have to be a
pointer to the 'parent'-shell; a bit like a short-cut on a Windows-desktop,
really... To store the individual sea-shells you'd all let them 'inherit' the
properties of the generic version, and then ADD properties to the individual
objects. In a way, you're creating new objects out of old ones, by pointing at
the old ones and sticking the extra or new properties to the pointer, instead
of making a copy of the original object each and every time you're going to
create an individual one... The generic objects are what we usually call
archtypes.
Let me know your thoughts,
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST