[FRIAM] What is an object?
Prof David West
profwest at fastmail.fm
Thu Jul 19 16:35:47 EDT 2018
Perhaps one could argue that the studiously acquired lens that allows
one to think about the detailed mechanisms of a computer program is not
helpful, nor anywhere close to correct and is not an efficient way to
reason about the world outside the computer?
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I accept there are some default lenses, but of course one develops
> more specific and different lenses to see the world too. I’m arguing
> that the default lens is not helpful as well as not anywhere close to
> correct. It is not an efficient way to reason about the detailed
> mechanisms of a computer program.>
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> *Date: *Thursday, July 19,
> 2018 at 1:05 PM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group' <friam at redfish.com> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>
> Marcus,
>
> But it’s models all the way down, right?
>
> Furthermore, even for a dualist, your “biology” is the lens through
> which you see the world. So, the idea that there is a world out there
> against which we can measure our representations of It is just silly,
> right? All we have is representations of representations.>
> That is what OOO seems to challenge, but I am hoping to save that
> conversation for when we can read Harmon together. Right now I am
> just trying to get a grip on what you mean by coop.>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>
> Nick,
>
> If I were programming in Cello[1], then actual constraints of biology
> would influence me. If I were programming an agent simulation for a
> system biology modeling project, what I understood about biology would
> go into that.> But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by biology.
> Programming language features for typing or genericity are precise
> mathematical instruments that are best to understand on their own,
> without any vague or grandiose metaphors.> Also, I would discriminate between programming and computation.
> There are many kinds of computation that would be interesting to
> consider separate from programming. (Although `programming’ to me
> already has a broader meaning than it does for some.)>
> Marcus
>
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> *Date: *Thursday, July 19,
> 2018 at 8:32 AM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group' <friam at redfish.com> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>
> Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS
> of biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?
> And your biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion
> of the cell. We never really know clouds themselves. So to speak.>
>
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>
> "Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in
> a complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture,
> society, psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are
> multifarious and occult.">
> Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man. For
> starters..>
> https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53> http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html
> http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
> https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen
> <gepropella at gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>
> Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the
> most important example Marcus raises of biology (because
> *everything* is biology 8^), even your historical account is a
> litany of WHAT, not WHY.
>
> Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts.
> But you're not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're
> actually doing in your list and analysis of past events is inferring
> the WHY from the WHAT. And your inferences, no matter how good you
> are at inferring, will always just be your best guess at WHY.
>
> Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in
> a complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in
> culture, society, psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.)
> are multifarious and occult. No oversimplified *narrative* like yours
> will fully circumscribe those causes. To think otherwise is to fool
> oneself into false belief ... a kind of faith-based world view.
>
>
> On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels
> <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> >"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the
> >philosophy and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of
> >cellular biology, and undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those
> >influences and led the team that implemented the team that actually
> >created the language at Xerox PARC."
> >
> >For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or
> >neurotransmitters in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.
> >The closest that comes to mind are functional reactive programming
> >systems,
> >e.g. game platforms tied to a physics engine. The idea that top-down
> > intent matters is preposterous if the motivation is biology, a
> > massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves physical
> > stuff.
>
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Links:
1. http://cidarlab.org/cello/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20180719/84eb4fea/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list