Arman, >My interest primarily focuses on how the brain represents and reasons >about parts of the physical universe.
You might like to read: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture by Tooby and Cosmides An introduction is available at: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html >You see I'm trying to compare the various types of programming >languages against how closely they match the human thinking process. I think it is a big mistake to assume we are anywhere close to being able to perform such a comparison. >The argument I'm trying to make is that if a computer programming >method is developed that is well aligned with the human process of >thought then we shall get more understandable designs. You are forgetting about culture and peoples past experiences. The following is a great example of how different cultures use of metaphor shapes peoples thinking process. www.mit.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf Perhaps in 50 years we might know enough to be able to design artifacts to fit snuggly with different peoples way of thinking. At the moment any such attempt is like the early engineers trying to mimic birds when building flying machines. You might like to look at the discussion in the semantic sections of: www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/sent782.pdf The design decision there was to accept that people make mistakes and try to come up with a set of recommendations that minimise the consequences of those mistakes. There is no attempt to specify a 'natural' way of doing things. derek -- Derek M Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PPIG Discuss List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
