Affinity Intellect (AI)

It seems that a new language for programming would make sense. The problem as I see it is that it is considered to be just that, programming. In the universe, it could be said that XOR is the core logic.

	attract	repel
--		x
-+	x
+-	x
++		x

In DNA the data and code are all intermingled and so it is with the universe. Once a thing is included in a system, the operation of the system is changed. The arbitrary differentiation of data and code seems inappropriate since data determines action as well as its interpretation. Many of the core concepts of logic, computers and math were established before the advent of advanced architectures.

Much like my programs, I consider the entire system to be fluid and subject to change to achieve a goal. It seems the practice is to operate on data to get more data. It seems that a more effective approach would be to articulate and instantiate functional structures. In an organism or in the universe, the data or state is an active object. Data is considered to be inert and programs to be actions. This distinction is not valid in practice as the data changes and as a result the process changes.

It leads to a situation where the code is constantly compiled as it runs. This is definitely not going to be something that can be characterized or debugged easily. It is like debugging protein affinities. I want a system of programming that matches the universe. I don't think that an integer step-wise expansion of capabilities will ever be effective. It is certainly a puzzle that is solvable and that is perhaps the problem. The universe is chaos and managing chaos with a stepped integer approach is always going to be incomplete and full of odd edges.

It seems that we go to great lengths to separate data from code and create scripts that act. As meta generation becomes more complex it creates a system which does exactly this and has no defined method or form. I can script with 100s of different methods and the ability to reuse is lost. Python is certainly helpful, but it retains the encumberances of the early IBM insistence that man be automated as an add-on to the computer. I can handle ascii_ansi_move or object.act or act(object) or CamelCase as a syntax, but why? It is definitely an artifact result of IBM and the early computer environment. It can be resolved to a smooth and usable method , but I need to take a walk and consider how it would all become coherent.

By combining the core method of intelligence with the core logic of the universe it seems that a better approach would result. The screwdriver of math is flat head and it always has problems with cross head screws. When I consider a problem as simple as protein affinities it becomes vastly complex when trying to use lists and variables to interpret it. The tools are cast with the wrong handles and so I must make new tools first.