Why...? (to be finalized)
Why people will need Codonology?
Why do we need the theory of Codonology?
The stem of such a question shares the same roots of many related ones, such as “Why do we need knowledge?”, “Why do we need reasons?”, and “Why do we need tools?”. Civilization seems already having gone through the ages when these questions had been raised and answered countless times and in countless different ways. Nowadays, the modern society, every expert from his or her specific field or discipline feels so confident on providing the perfect or almost perfect answers to those questions based on their own expertise. Or, (pause and ponder…), can they really do? Nowadays, as a result of long intellectual evolution in civilization, every scope of knowledge, reasons and relevant tools involve two challenging ends of extremes, the extreme in details and the extreme in generality. In other words, all kinds and a vast number of theories are created and being tested simultaneously in order to explain same or similar set of phenomenon or cross quite different sets of previously unexplained things. With unprecedented extremely large collection of information, which has been produced and even being done so more rapidly, a series questions, the unprecedented, are being asked. Here’s the list of those, which I think being most significant but un-aware and un-addressed:
(1) This question is a kind of evolved form of Turing test:
Can a person be trusted to be entitled as a Qualified Expert Equivalent (QEE) if he or she is equipped with sufficient sets of knowledge in a specific field by use of intelligent tools (IT) such as database, computers, Internet, and any Other Reasonable Mechanism (ORM)?
A person with such QEE does not have any advanced training in a classic sense such as Ph.D program. In any case, the result is that, as long as they are always assisted INSTANTLY with IT plus ORM, these QEE performs indistinguishably different from those who have had a good training in classic sense.
[A further detailed imaginary scene for Question (1):
When a pile of books is sitting right in front of a person “A”, what can person A tell the audiences about those books? There is a list of countless things that person “A” is able to provide with confidence. Under one scenario, if “A” has a superb memory, he or she is able to recite every single word from those books. The audience can check the true accuracy of A’s powerful memory by following “A” on the same page with same pace.
In another scene, “A” is able to answer all the questions from the audience by citing the reference from those books, pointing to the page where the evidences and reasons are based on. Now, let’s set up a quite different scenario. This time, the same piles of books have been digitized into computer and other related systems, collectively called “Computational Power” (CP). A series of same requests are made to a person “B” who does not have same natural capability as “A” does. Nonetheless, “B” has a constant assistance from CP, although there is no real live person offering direct help. The report from testing results indicates that there is no difference in terms of any testable intelligence between un-assisted “A” and assisted “B”. The judging criterion for those testable intelligence includes: Accuracy of reciting, Speed on providing answers, Accuracy and precision of citing references from provided books, Rationality on reasoning.]
If your answer is yes to Question (1), then go to the following question.
(2) Do you consider the true existence of equivalence of quality in a sense of intelligence if human creativity can be programmable by ORM? If yes, then next one
(3) Is there a true difference considered in the value as human being when such individual can be or potentially could be performing equivalently as any others who may not have to use such IT assistance for the performance of the same equivalence quality? If you answer “No” to the first two, or “Yes” to the third one, please answer me: Do you believe that possibility does exist? If yes, please go on.
In reality, there is already an excellent living example and prominent figure, Stephen Wolfram, who indirectly and unintentionally expresses the consensus to those three questions inside his book, NKS “A New Kind of Science”. His “Principle of computational equivalence” demonstrates as a testimony to everyone who still feels unease about questioning each intellectual for his or her own capability on reasoning without sophisticated computational assistance. Actually, nowadays, people around the world are doing the same things, but just without recognizing the true nature of what and how they are doing. It is just simply called “using an application (a computer software)”.
Nobody denies that any computer software is a kind of reasoning tool with featured spontaneity (software for special application), but in a kind of “choking” mode. We know the spontaneity coming from digital computers; but what about those reasons? The reasons are those rules, theories or hypothesis, which have been set up and proven or being proven.
Now, we got IT and bunch of software applications. We still do not see any use of Codonology.
Now, it's time for more questions:
(4) Why exactly the same concept can be expressed in more than one natural language system?
(5) For such fact (question 4) along with countless evidence, besides all categories in mathematics and logics (including computer science), what have the theorists done, in history and now, to reflect such facts and truth?
(6) Why there is no computer in the world now, which can understand human natural language as an ordinary human being does? Is it human language too hard to crack down by computers? Or, we just don’t really know WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT in the form of natural language?
In mathematics from the past well over one hundred years, many theorists or logicians have contributed and accomplished toward establishing conceptual notation systems, which have led to the current conceptual expression mechanism by digital computer. Every mathematician feels no trouble to communicate with computer on any mathematical concept that is embedded in contents of Law (axioms, thermos, etc.). If some new concepts do not exist in existing system, they can always create new ones by using the existing rules or making new rules based on clear definitions (logics, set theory and so on). In doing so, mathematician can always keep pace with computer for “conceptual conversations” in one-on-one manner. It means that every concept or individual conceptual notation in the mind of a mathematician has its exactly identical one in computer. In other word, computer knows what a mathematician is TALKING ABOUT, or vice versa. In such way, any new mathematical conclusion, which is made by computer, can be considered equally as rigorous as done by human mathematician, who most likely takes much longer to finish.
Now, let’s jump to a higher land of intellectual universe to have a more complete view besides mathematics and logics. Thus, we shall have an opportunity to seek the most primitive and common ancestor of human thought and reasoning. This primitive intellectual entity shall have the common root so that all the reasons, doubts and paradoxes have their own space. It shall have the essence that is able to convey the core of knowledge and reasons regardless the specific language being used. Therefore, it is a Form of universality. It is expressed in Codonology.
Modern mathematics and logics stay clearly and firmly from such extended lines of primitive origin, the Codons, in a way, which all the members of rules, axioms, theorems, laws, principles share such nature: being consistently staying away from self-contradictory with reservation of permanent space for truth and temporary space for un-decidable, and no space for false.
The primitive idea in any meaningful expression started from the first codon in human civilization, such as this one, the basic principle of survival as human: in English, “Let us eat food” or “one plus one equals two”; or “让咱们吃饭” or “一加一等于二” in Chinese. Such principle or rule, as common sense idea, has been true for very long time. These principle or rule presents no difference between people speaking in different languages. Therefore, we should have a way to recognize such identity for such principle and concept, for the very same reason and knowledge, ultimately, for the very same contents of such Law and Concept beside the superficial linguistic label as the content in the subset of Phenomenon. Such way is Codonology.
Throughout the past course of human civilization, the universe of collected meanings or explanations, knowledge and reasons, has evolved to our current status as a matured phase in a sense of intellectuality and general wisdom. We do realize that, among the collected arguments or statements of human thoughts, besides clear truth or false, there are other kind of items: countless undecidable, self-contradictoriness including paradoxes. Taking all together, the total counts for all such intellectual patterns, events and contents can be viewed not only from the reflection of the development of human civilization as a whole, but also from the intellectual development of any individual personal life time. The truth of such reflections is encoded in the Codonology as part of concept collections.
Again, the complete Codons have all the spaces for all human thoughts. And, a specific natural language system is just one type of expression way for shared same concepts, ideas, knowledge and reasons from people speaking linguistically different. When people exchange thoughts for mutual understandings, the concepts under the different linguistic covers are identical. In Codon, functionally, the weight of meaning is clearly marked on the contents in the subsets of Law and Concept, not the superficial linguistic label in the subset of Phenomenon. (Click to revisit “What is Codonology?”). Therefore, one single word can mean many different things - different counts for different concepts; or many different words can mean the same thing, a synonym, or by different languages. The commonness or regularities form a single group of entity, named “Law”, which holds the belief and explanation in the form of sentence; then, in sentences, paragraph, chapter, book, books, library, and libraries in a phase, considered complete in collection, upon certain time point.
To round up the infinite tail of explanation, now back to the point from a few paragraphs earlier, “WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT in the form of natural language?”. The answer is that the form is Codon, a kind of semantics but with clear marking on each individual concept and related rule statement. Therefore, Codon or Codons in a spontaneous reasoning mechanism, namely Codonology, are reasonable to be believed as tool sets for people to communicate between them and computers or between people.
Each time when people have only some finite reasoning steps during communication within the mostly upgraded computational power being used (year 2007), they can always assume that computer has advantage over human being in terms of speed and memory. Under such condition, if the result of this kind of communication contains self-conflicting statement, computer will quickly point out the conflicting point and show its reason, the contents of Codons (most likely in English).
As stated in my papers and articles, I believe that it must need enormously combined efforts from society to build and fill up the complete contents for all the Codons, the library of Law and library of Concept. The more such social effort has been done, the more completeness of spontaneous reasoning mechanism will be established, and the higher value of humanity will be achieved. As a result, in return, such intellectual system will benefit every individual who is a member in the community, and, in return, back to the community that consists of its contributing individual within itself.
Now, once again, a familiar old voice with a new tone: Since Knowledge is Power, let’s empower it in a most efficient way.
In the language of Codonology, higher efficiency means more codons are identified and counted per second, or bits per second in the terms of information theory. Before the time of digital computer, such procedure was the activities that we’re all familiar with. They are called “reading and comprehension” or “listening and comprehension”. Simply, it is thinking, reasoning, and understanding in its natural way without much intellectual assistance from non-human entity.
Human mind carries meaning in the form of language, forming in the invisible conceptual unit of Codon for its total sense. However, the ever-increased length or number of sentences (eventually formed into paragraphs, chapters, books…) is making “completely conceptually convincing” to any individual readers beyond reach. The reason is simple: “Too much to read”. Without intellectual assistance by computer, human being’s mind functions in its natural way in thinking and reasoning, inevitable resulting in larger invisible gaps between different individuals in terms of intellectual performance. Those differences indicate the capability on identifying and counting, naturally and unintentionally, the codons (not just words alone or the words in the sentences). Those codons contain the contents of knowledge and reasons. For the gifted, his or her mind carries and transfers more individual unique codons per mind and per time than others who have no any assistance with intellectual tools.
Along the same line of reasoning, it becomes clear about the role of a word or phrase from any language. They are “summation” of all the “points” of sense making. In other word, a word or phrase, linguistically speaking from the angle of codonology, is always a brief expression of total meaning from the concepts and their embedded propositions at a given time of reference. For instance, the word “food”, it only covers the meaning as food in ancient time, like things for man to eat, but not those “lifeless” muddy water in a pond, before the time of theory of micro-organism, which now we believe sharing quite similar things under the concept of nutrient with same word “food”. Therefore, every word or phrase is only meaningful from a given historical and geological space. Now, you see it again that the same concept can be expressed in different wording from different time, or same time from different culture background (once more, geologically). And also, a “totality-strengthening” power of any word is understandable. Like the word “food” with its full meaning, it has a totality-strengthening power to sum up all the relevant concepts and theories with them under its not quite ambiguous bundle, which is labeled “Food”.
Now, the “picture” about “what is a natural language” is becoming clearer in its self-serving manner through Codonology. Any specific language system is serving as “markings”, which are always partially complete, for any concept, which exist in human mind in the same identity regardless its linguistic difference. Such linguistic “markings”, well-ordered syntaxes, are holding the “totality-strengthening” power to every member or element, which suppose to be included totally. Furthermore, by extending the point of same reasoning, we shall resolve the complete mystery underneath the mask of any language, called “semantics”, through Codonology.
Unlike pre-information age, the image of power demonstrated by any polymaths never becomes as impressive as in the old days. Obviously, it is not because we are at the age, of which more “less intelligent” geniuses are borne. It is simply because no geniuses alone can ever show any sign of boundless brainpower without computational assistance in general. Again, Dr. Stephen Wolfram himself presents such a case clearly. And, again, the reason also rests on the fact that no genius is necessarily needed to do repetitive mind-crunching work any more. Although new laws about the Nature are still waiting to be discovered by human being including geniuses, the man-made tools must be used to check the human error and “mindful-mindless” flaws.
Now, it appears clearer that to become QEE (Qualified Expert Equivalent), what a person should possess is collection of codons, extremely large, with assistance of computer via the mechanism, the “Other Reasonable Mechanism”, Codonology. Then, we should be ready for the actions of “self-enlightening” experience (Edison phenotypical alternation) as described in “Miscellaneous”. The very first scene: “Concept Searching”
Concept search technology and beyond
- Demonstration of Potential Personal and Social Impact of Codonology in Future Human Society
The very first function, which Codonology can perform in theory, is that when a person searches something in database locally (e.g. Intranet) or remotely (Internet), the search result will be not just relevant but also be exact. Let’s have some examples. Seven of them are illustrated here. You can do a thousand or even more from the same analogy by yourself. The detailed proposals about “How to make it work” from theory to reality are presented in section of “How…”, in which your participation is necessary. Now, for each example, it is demonstrated in a way that a parallel comparison will be shown under “Current Technology” vs “Codonology”, following each example description and ending in some explanation for this example. Example#1: Concept search (showing the facts) In the search query box, type in: When was HIV discovered? (Search history: on October 2nd 2006) Current technology (such as Google. Only the first 5 displayed) Time: 0.09 second There is no direct answer to the question about the concept of “time”. Only very broad relevancy and links are provided. The requester of such search query is responsible for exact answer that he or she wants. Codonology (“>>” means response from computer) >> Answer: Year 1983 >> Based on the reference as evidence from: … …[from codon collections…] >> At that time when you were still … …[from codon collections…] [Click here for detail.] Example#2: Concept search (showing the truth) In the search query box, type in: Pfizer makes the drug, Zerit, for HBV therapy. Current technology (such as Google) (Search result display omitted) No relevant answer at all. Codonology Time: (Instant) >>Spontaneous response: >>Wrong. Pfizer does not make Zerit. Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) does. And, it is not used for HBV therapy, it’s for HIV. [In codon collections, “Zerit” under concept “drug” does not exist in the set of all Pfizer’s drugs, but exist, as a fact, in BMS’s collections; and no joint ownership (concept) exists as a fact between these two companies.] Example#3: Reasoning based on the existing theories (Codons) In the search query box, type in: Why somebody gets AIDS but somebody else doesn’t? Current technology (search result display omitted) No instant relevant answer. Codonology Time: (Instant) >>Answer: [From Virtual Expert A ] >> It is a fact that some people are not so vulnerable as most of others, because …(theory No. 1, 2, …; and rules in reasoning …) [from codon collections…] >> Reference from published articles as evidence: … …[from codon collections…] [From Virtual Expert B] >> I do not agree with Expert A on … …, because … … (the reasons No.1, 2…)[from codon collections…] >> Reference from published articles as evidence: … …[from codon collections…] [From Virtual Expert C] >> The difference between Expert A and Expert B is that (difference in their theory) [Compare between different codon collections…] Example#4 Reasoning based on the theories of your choices (selected Codons) (Question) a requester: HIV does not cause AIDS. or HIV causes AIDS. [Two different Codons about Theories on rationality and belief…] Example#5 Excel sheet talk back (conceptualized cells, Codons from the applied mathematics) (Question) a requester: >> (a real man) What is the result from such math: 1 apple + 2 oranges + 4 bananas? >> (Computer) Are you counting fruits? >> (a real man) Yes or no >> (Computer) For “yes”, you have 3 different fruits, and total 7 pieces of them; most of them are banana. For “no”, it seems that you have total 3 different items, total 7 items; most of them are the one called bananas. Now, please tell me what are those items, then I can give new result based on what you mean about those items… >> (a real man) Actually, they are seven different colors, but bundled into 3 different groups. >> (Computer) Let me guess, these colors are: somewhat green, orange, and yellow, right? >> (a real man) Right. … … Example#6 Any question from Jeopardy, the quiz show. (relevant knowledge in Codons) ... ... Example#7 about any math questions (Wolfram’s Mathematica Application in Codons) ... ... (More examples may be demonstrated in the future.) Enter supporting content here