investigation topic:

pre-existing objects and classes can destroy an idea
but there's a kind of fitting that goes on
so, you need early layers that preserve the idea
if you can find them, you can compare them to the
normal process.
unfortunately, the normal process isn't recorded.
damn. so, you need sequences too!

But that's too complex to start with. you need simpler examples to start with.
like 'grammatical' or 'hard to understand' or 'different meaning'

i'm also thinking about images and non-image computing design in the mind ... 
something contact-mechanical, something signal-networkish, something action-at-a-distance-ish,
something contingent, and highly compounded contingencies
something gradient like, and visual forces on a page.

then there's the issue of 'fitting' technology to your intention ... what are
the simplest examples.

the distance between natural lanaguage and formal language.

is there natural language intensional semantic work on the words and core conepts that we recruit in programming?

if this-is-true do that
if this-is-true do that otherwise do this
if this then that
if this then that
do this then do that
store this
read this

if there are atomic ideas here, what are they?

1. desired sequential instruction

i want this to happen, and then i wan that to happen

2. special instruction

if you see the roof leaking, then fix it before you do anything else

3. checklist of conditions

make sure all these things are true before doing anything else:

a) clean the dishes
b) take out the trash


everyone learns these things, so there is very little in the outside world that trains it.
but it hasn't much cyclical structure. maybe because these are instincts.
planning it may take our structured cyclical capacity.

ah, wait, there are cyclical bits.

1. ordered instructions

do this
do that
now do that

this is ... cyclical? linear? repetative?

because you're not just reacting to stuff. you have a goal.
that said, a hunting tiger has a goal, and solves much more complex
problems along the way.
they often stick to their goal, but not so much to their sub-goals, or steps.
we do essentially the same thing.

hm. is there really a question there? the concious planning in programming is conscious, certainly.

2. the declaration

something is true
somthing else is true
the programming environment i'm using takes my declarations
and does something moderately well understood with them.

really, you need a simple proposition that you can test simply.

3. "if" 

the wikipedia page just has implicative and predictive and counterfactual. in computing, we use imperative. which is a subset of predictive on the wiki page.

constituent analysis

try to use english algorithmic descriptions, like:

a variable 'sum' is given the value of 0
a variable 'x' is initiatilized to the value of 15
the following procedure takes place until x has a value of 0
 print the value of the square of x
 add the value of the square of x to 'sum'
 decrement 'x' by 1

now, we don't care about the mathematical relation between the initial value of 'x' and the final value of 'sum'

we care more about goals, and approaches.

and there are no goals in this problem.

that seems to be a very far problem from the 'what is "if"?' question.

'if', like 'no', may be in fact atomic concepts, in a physiological psychology sense. when you ask someone 'what is if' or 'what is no', they typically draw a blank. if they've thought about this from a intensional point of view before, they probably just say 'something in our mind we have no conscious access to'. 

'if' probably has some connection to our definition of computation, which may be as simple as values moving and morphing through some kind of network or system. all of which are human ideas. it's easy to imagine computation without 'if' (like, a calculator has no "if") ... we have added all our atomic ideas to computation? 

'no' and 'yes' and 'if' and 'put' and 'get' and 'repeat' and 'parameterize / substitute'? these are core mentations of some kind. i don't know how many a cat would have. but they have become part of our internal culture of programming.

the 'natural' idea of computation is not really distinct from machine or network. you could test that in various ways.

you could write snippets of code and ask 'is this comprehensible'? 'is this good code'?

remember that the symbols on the page mean nothing, without some human having conveyed the idea, and the ideas are based on our biology

great ... so what would you like to prove?

i'd like to prove that frameworks are deleterious ... we need to keep stuff in the idea stage for as long as possible, and not focus on building stuff other people will build on? that's not right. but the interface with that stuff needs to be more natural . .. a simple example would be nice.