Reading this, I am thinking that reality does not present as "code and data," there is always just some integrated something -- thought, object, etc. Where does the code stop and the data start in commonsense reality.
On Saturday, January 24, 2015, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > <javascript:;>> 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] > <javascript:;>> 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/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
