I lost track of what I was saying in my first post but I do recall the more important point that I was coming to. Suppose you were designing the central processor code for a very simple computer (that you might, for example, use to study fundamental questions). Could you combine an instruction word for the processor with a value parameter (or a parameter that was a reference to a value)? Of course you could just make one part of a word the instruction code and the other part the value. But could you combine them so that it wasn't obvious that one part was an instruction and the other part was a value or a reference to a value? You could use something that acted like an encryption to make the two superficially indistinguishable but I started wondering how I might design a computer language in which an input word might contain both an instruction value and a data value (or reference) and both of them would be indistinguishable and yet readable. It took me a while to figure that one out. You would need to frame the code to read more than one 'instruction' word at a time and then use grammar with it. This is an interesting insight. It answers an interesting question, I think it represents a potential for a somewhat novel programming language and it describes something that looks a lot like human language. Now, this post might be dismissed by a knowledgeable reader because computer programs already use grammatical rules to read instruction code and we already write code that can refer to the "language" of input. But most of our code reads input in pretty mundane ways. My thought here is that this represents a thought experiment which shows a strong relationship between a fundamental computational method and the methods of human language. Most computer instructions are written in a way to make each instruction simple and unambiguous. Of course if you just started writing a language that acted more like a human language the potential for creating ambiguities could be great. But that is just the reason why most programmers haven't actually seen a computer language like the one I am suggesting might actually be used as a novel programming language. Although you could write a computer language in which values or references to values and instructions could be combined, the more reasonable approach would be to use simpler data values and instructions. But after you take the step of considering more powerful data words that also contain or represent hints on how they might be used then the next step is to realize that the program should have the capability to learn new data and instruction words. Again, the simplest approach would be to start with a carefully predefined way that new instructions could be input. But another way to go would be to make the program so that it had the potential to accept new instruction strings but make it figure out when it made sense to read some input as an activation of that potential. This is intended to suggest how the fundamental nature of a computer is closely related to conceptual relativism. This computer programming language, an example of which you have never seen, describes a fundamental relativism like that you might see in human language and I think it should make an impression on an experienced programmer. Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant to say: > Now the thing is that instruction code is a kind of enumeration (as > are most of the referential codes) but the value data may - in many > cases - be something more. > > But I am both right and wrong about that. > > I wanted to ask the rhetorical question: Can an instruction code be > something more than an enumeration just like I said that a value can > be? > > However, after I formed this question I realized that value data can > be something more than an enumeration just because it can refer to a > dynamic system that can be superimposed on it and that system can be > encoded somewhere else in the instructions or in the program. So if > the data is typed, for example, then the extra power of the values are > due to the algorithms that are used with the that type of data so data > can be "something more," as I said, only because it can refer to other > dynamic or multiple step instructions. > > However, with thought those systems may exist in other minds even if > they are not explicitly described in a particular mind. So I can say > something about the compressor in a jet engine with a jet propulsion > engineer even though I don't know most of the details about a jet > engine or about the compressors of jet engines. > > So in one sense I was wrong. The value data is not something more > glorious than an enumeration. Technically I was right. The fact that > certain data can be used in special ways does not mean that it is just > an enumeration. And I am still right in the spirit of the idea, that > some static data can implicitly refer to a set of instructions on how > to use it. > > So then value data can also refer to more than one set of instructions. > Jim Bromer > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Look at the code for a computer program. Certain values represent >> instructions and others represent data and others represent various >> references to data. Suppose you had a computer that was nearly as >> primitive as a Turing Machine. Could you convert all the program so >> that the static data were all replaced by instruction values and the >> programming instructions were replaced by value and reference data. I >> mean could this be virtually accomplished with something like a >> universal turing machine so none of the original data was preserved in >> its original forms? Is there a way to make the instruction code do the >> stuff that the parameters do and a way to make the parameters do the >> stuff the instructions do - for that program? >> >> The point is that the distinction between instruction code and >> parameter code is not set in stone. Now the thing is that instruction >> code is a kind of enumeration (as are most of the references) but the >> value code in the instruction data may - in many cases - be something >> more. >> >> Is this off topic? >> >> Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
