Tag Archives: line of code vs. line of thought

A line of OOP vs. line of thought

The programming paradigm of OOP has become intrinsicly popular in the recent decades of software development, and the most popular PL’s of our days have OOP libraries containing thousands of lines of code, and us developers seem to have grown pretty acustomed to the idea. The part where it all goes wrong though, is when we start believing that this object oriented model has something in common with the human line of thought.

Although it might at first seem logical that we have some aspects like a car, a car can have different properties like a color and a type, thereafter it can be driven, painted, tolled, and so on. Once we instanciate a given car(imagine it or see it), it somehow magically aquires this or that property. I hope you get the idea, and it does seem a bit elegant at first, but partially absurd at the second.

Here are a few clear differences between OOP and thought:


  1. OOP is strictly structured, like a tree, everything inherits from a root. Well, what determines by which property determines the placement of a class in this tree? This is like sorting books in a library. There are about an ∞ number of ways to sort the books, but we most likely sort it by the alphabet, since it is the most widespread way of sorting. However our brain can sort books by name, author, genre, number of pages, amount of imagery, complexity of the language, countless ways of sorting. Which one we choose depends on the context of the sorting.
  2. The amount of properties and functions in a regular OOP class is static, although we can at any given time imagine what it would be like to throw a car, or eat steel. Objects don’t have static functions or properties, there are lists of functions and properties, which are somehow binded to an object, and allow us to imagine or see something unusual, which on a regular (OOP bases) wouldn’t be there.
  3. Then there is the element of reusage of code, or rather, reusage of function, which pretty much derrives from point 2. So if there are 2 objects performing a relatively same function, chance is that it is the same function(perhaps slightly altered), and not rewritten again, which you usually would result to in tree-structured OOP. You might say that all you have to do is derrive on object from the other, but what if the functionality is in a sister node, rather than a parent? Like so:

I want the same function in child12 and child 1a1, one thing could be to put into the root, but thats absurd, since I don’t want it everywhere else. I could create a base class for the two classes, but then how do I implement both Child1 and Child1a functionality, and seperate it at the same time? Well as I see, there is no way to do this?? Unless the function lies outside the tree structure, so then, what is the point of the tree as whole?



Dimensions, Points and Natural Language

So what the hell do all these dimensions and points have to do with natural language? Well let’s try to analyze a few sentences.

The dog is green.

The dog is an object, and is therefore imediately referenced to a rough synth of a dog in the 3 dimensions of space. The word is indicates a reference to some sort of dimension of function or property, and the word green is a reference to a point in dimension of color. If throughout the dimension of time there hasn’t been a case of a dog being green, than no such connection will be drawn and the idea of a green dog should therefore seem odd to the intelligence. 

This, however, does not stop the intelligence from imagening such a dog, meaning that an intelligence is seemlessly able to mix dimensions as it wishes, if this is a realistic mix, we call this an act of creativity, since as defined, a green dog has not been seen before. If such a mix of dimensions can serve to solve some sort of a problem, we call this innovation, and is often where we dicide to earn some money on our idea.

So.. I’d like to define knowledge as knowing the broadth of diverse dimensions, learning as aquiring that knowledge through observation and imagination, imagination, in turn, as the act of creatively mixing dimensions, and finally thought as the act of analysis of what mixing a few dimensions would result in. Whether you pick the right choice through thought or not, depends on, basically, your previously acquired knowledge and, well, luck. Since it is knowledge you acquire from this imagination, the quality of that knowledge depends on the quality of your choices of the mixture, which depend on the previously aquired knowledge.

So in essence all the information should saved in these dimensions, and what is contained within these dimensions are relationships to all other possible intertwining dimensions at the specific points of the dimension.

So here I have analyzed how to store the analyzed data, i still need to know how to weigh acquisition and usage of it.

P.S. don’t be mistaken by the term knowledge, it has no direct relation to ONLY scientific knowledge, it also relates to knowledge about mixture of colors, seeds or even actions and sounds for that matter.

The Dimensionz

I described earlier that there must be some basic dimensions, such as shape, function and sound, but have come to a conclusion, that sounds way too stupid. 

First of, shape, is nothing else than elements of color twisted in the 3 dimensions of space, and color is nothing else than elements of light twisted in some other higher dimensions, and so on, and so forth. Same goes for function and sound, although those 3 sure look like as some very basic dimensions, we can go deeper, so they are merely MAIN dimensions, which will be used most often, but are not at all the building blocks.

They are, as I myself defined, dimensions that can be twisted and indexed as pretty much everything else. Instead the building blocks seem to be the points themselves, and the connections that they have. The building blocks of our understannding of the world seem to be built up of:

New Dimension(IndexOfSubDimension,IndeciesInSubDimension[])

I was too lazy to desribe this in NL, which is another plus side of regular PL’s which I should look into. 

A simple example is a pencil. In the dimension of time it appears in the past, now and most likely in the future, if you are holding one in your hand. 

However I have defined that everything is a dimension, so how is a pencil a dimension? Well it isn’t, not in the current context of thought. The central point of the context of thought would most likely be a point, which in our cas is a pencil, but can probably be twisted to be a dimension in another context. Think of this like the 2 basic dimensions, sth in the first dimension is a point, but once you add the other, you can make it a line. Or well, almost like that.

However a pencil is still a dimension, becuase it has a dynamic number of properties and functions, a different number of points so to say.

Natural Languagez

So in one weekend I managed to drink a whole lot of free beer with a bunch of freshman on the datalogistics course at Århus University, visit Baresso in Århus the morning after, go to my ex-girlfriend’s birthday party in Grenå(just to score 4/5 phonenumbers, and a few kisses), go to Copenhagen the morning after to hand in my application for a permanent residence in DK, and sit down at a Baresso on Kongens Nytorv and write this entry(I’ve missed out a few things, just so you don’t get borred). 

Despite the busy schedule(which I had, well, no idea about Friday morning, which shows you the spontaneity of my choices 🙂 ), I still managed to get a thorough read of the introductory and concluding chapter in “Human Language And Our Reptilian Brain The Subcortical Bases Of Speech Syntax and thought“, by Philipe Lieberman. This, together with some previous knowledge and research, as well as a talk with Bjarke Bondo(on our way to free beer, and a presentation from V8 developers, which we unfortunately missed), and my mom last night, has given me an idea of where to steer my further line of code vs. line of thought research. In fact I once again believe that I have a theory that looks so elegant, that it would bring AI to the world, make world piece and show us the deepest secrets of the human mind, but I’m probably mistaken, and this is exactly what this blog is for, I want to see how often, and how far off some of my thoughts are. So here it goes, all or nothing: 🙂

The thing with natural language is that to many eyes it looks way too complicated and way to differential and abstracr, that there can impossibly be a set of rules like there is for regular PL’s. Naom Chomsky argues though that since we all(by default) have the ability to fall into any languistic syntax and understand it, than there must be some sort of a Universal Grammar embedded within our genes. This idea has taken a head start about 50 years ago, and has bothered many neurologists, linguists and alike, for years, but noone has been able to come up with a unifying and overall syntax, for anything at all.

  • One problem with this research is of course that it has absolutely no respect to possible future developments of natural language, and only looks at past experiences. 
  • Another problem with the research done in this area is the question of how these words are stored within our minds? Do we relate shapes to actions to sounds(and round we go)?
  • Than there are of course those that believe that there is no unification and overall formula for the syntax of NL, and that everything is pretty random, but as I described earlier, I don’t believe in random 🙂 the underlying idea of random is way too weak, and has been proven wrong too many times. So those who believe in random, are by definition insane. Since they look at the same action and expect a different result(same goes for the act of love).

If we try to look at our own minds, then our thoughts will most likely be in a form of NL, and one that is most actual in the context of the thought. However simoultaneously thoughts of pictures break down this idea. So sounds are intertvined with forms and all are intertvined with actions(& consequences, which are the same thing in this context). All of these seem to be blended together into some sort of synth, alike Microsoft Photosynth, only having MANY MANY MANY more than the 3 dimensions of space. So imagine the brain like the 3D dot-representation of the real world only it, is in roughly ∞ amount of artificial dimensions, the amount of which grow and shrink depending on what our thought wants(in essense the 3 dimensions of space are too AD’s, we are just so used to using them, that we are blinded by it)

So right… if we look aside from all the extra dimensions, then a single entity(or so-called object) seems like a point in the 3 dimensions of space. Let’s think of a pencil, hovering in mid-air, and then add on a dimension of time, here, the simple point of a pencil will most likely appear many times, rather than once, because we have used it in many different locations. Does this mean that for every occurance in time there is a seperate point in the 3 dimensions of space referencing the pencil? Although simple, but most likely not.. So instead I like to believe that the pencil is located in our simple dimension of shapes, than every single of the 3 dimensions of space are bended by the context of thought, at this point the context being a point in time. In essense the 3 dimensions also bend each other – try rotating the pencil in your head, the object’s shape in the terms of x and y depend heavily on it’s position in z

This makes the idea of the overall picture of something quite dynamic as well, since that simply depends on the amount of dimensions that you wish look at, and whether your understand the point’s position in all of the dimensions, if not, you get confused, like you were confused over the placement of the letter z in the AD of my blog, but you knew that it was a letter in the gregorian alphabet and knew what it sounded like.

Right, let’s abandon the thought of dimensions bending each other for now, and try to look at this at a larger scale. If we regard natural language as a dimension of itself, it will only make sense if we know it’s position in the overall picture of whatever it is that we want to describe. So for an AI to understand our thoughts, it must know the flow of our thoughts, and thereby know us, and the better it knows our thoughts, the better it will be able to understand and interprate whatever it is that we are telling it.

Understanding the individual is not enough though, and is thereafter nearly impossible. It will be much easier for the AI to understand the individual if it has a picture of the society, and the overall picture on the same scale as the whole of the human kind. Afterall, it is the society around us that defines, what, how, when and why we do whatever. 

So in order for an AI to become an AI it must be in the cloud, and it must be personalized for each user, kind of like personalised Google search. It learns your habits, and the habits of those in your community(as well as the whole picture), and makes the best possible guess on what it really is that you want. 

My thought therefore is, if we can get the machine to guess what information we need in the current context, than why not try and make it guess what function it is that we want? -> Programming with natural language

So what we get on the personal level, is an AI that knows us, and can help us with our tasks and choices, but on the broader level, connecting these AI’s creates an AI society. The properties that they can share, like a language, are common for that society. Combining these AI’s on a global level, and using computing to determine global values between all humans, could be called a Rational Intelligence(RI). Rational because this intelligence will most likely have a very good idea of all possible broadths of dimensions known to all men, and not have positions and opinions of it’s own. This in turn can serve as the soul basis for a global government. 

The only question is, how this AI weighs the different points and dimensions.. To be continued..


In my Hello World I wrote that it all started with Python, and I guess I owe you an explanation.

Once I discovered Python, I discovered the meaning in life. Nothing more and nothing less..

No just kidding, but Python comes pretty close 🙂 The (pretty) wasteless syntax of Python, makes my years of slaying through strictly structured and static OOP languages look like a complete waste of brain juice. What Python showed me, was that there is no programming language(or programming paradigm for that matter) that is good enough to describe the true flow of thought.

After Python I no longer simply code, I analyze the syntax of my thought vs. the syntax of my code, only becoming more and more convinced that most of the widespread PL’s are filled with garbage code. They are not developer friendly, Python is the first step towards that, and I aim to try and make the next step in that direction. This is therefore the next goal in my life, try and design a language(with Python syntax at the base) which becomes more and more in parallel with the natural line of thought. 

So what does that have to do with me starting a blog?? I love philosophy, and my brain is always filled with thoughts, I aim to organise them in a single unit, and thereafter analyze this unit, and come up with some sort of a theory for the line of thought of a software developer.