Ah. You try to achieve a purely numeric result. Don't forget qualitative data and normative thinking. Perhaps by meaning you mean qualitative data. Normative thinking should control reason. That is, we shouldn't be experimenting with destructive things.
Perhaps experimenting with meaning is trying to achieve a more humane, comical result. Let's not forget humor and emotion in our pursuit of science. We're humans after all, not computers. On Feb 13, 2013 3:39 PM, "Barry Jay" <barry....@uts.edu.au> wrote: > ** > Hi John, > In the scientific tradition, experiments produce cold facts, while reason > chooses the experiments, and uses them to test hypotheses, i.e. to extract > meaning, so perhaps "experimenting for meaning" or "experimenting to > recover, or discover, meaning" is closer to what I had in mind. > > > On 02/14/2013 08:21 AM, John Carlson wrote: > > If doing experiment means experimenting with meaning, I agree. > On Feb 13, 2013 3:17 PM, "Barry Jay" <barry....@uts.edu.au> wrote: > >> Hi Alan, >> >> the phrase I picked up on was "doing experiments". One way to think of >> the problem is that we are trying to automate the scientific process, which >> is a blend of reasoning and experiments. Most of us focus on one or the >> other, as in deductive AI versus databases of common knowledge, but the >> history of physics etc suggests that we need to develop both within a >> single system, e.g. a language that supports both higher-order programming >> (for strategies, etc) and generic queries (for conducting experiments on >> newly met systems). >> >> Yours, >> Barry >> >> >> On 02/14/2013 02:26 AM, Alan Kay wrote: >> >> Hi Thiago >> >> I think you are on a good path. >> >> One way to think about this problem is that the broker is a human >> programmer who has received a module from half way around the world that >> claims to provide important services. The programmer would confine it in an >> address space and start doing experiments with it to try to discover what >> it does (and/or perhaps how well its behavior matches up to its claims). >> Many of the discovery approaches of Lenat in AM and Eurisko could be very >> useful here. >> >> Another part of the scaling of modules approach could be to require >> modules to have much better models of the environments they expect/need in >> order to run. >> >> For example, suppose a module has a variable that it would like to >> refer to some external resource. Both static and dynamic typing are >> insufficient here because they are only about kinds of results rather than >> meanings of results. >> >> But we could readily imagine a language in which the variable had >> associated with it a "dummy" or "stand-in" model of what is desired. It >> could be a slow version of something we are hoping to get a faster version >> of. It could be sample values and tests, etc. All of these would be useful >> for debugging our module -- in fact, we could make this a requirement of >> our module system, that the modules carry enough information to allow them >> to be debugged with only their own model of the environment. >> >> And the more information the model has, the easier it will be for a >> program to see if the model of an environment for a module matches up to >> possible modules out in the environment when the system is running for real. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Thiago Silva <tsi...@sourcecraft.info> <tsi...@sourcecraft.info> >> *To:* fonc <fonc@vpri.org> <fonc@vpri.org> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:09 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message >> Oriented" >> >> Hello, >> >> as I was thinking over these problems today, here are some initial >> thoughts, >> just to get the conversation going... >> >> >> The first time I read about the Method Finder and Ted's memo, I tried to >> grasp >> the broader issue, and I'm still thinking of some interesting examples to >> explore. >> >> I can see the problem of finding operations by their meanings, the >> problem of >> finding objects by the services they provide and the overal structure of >> the >> discovery, negotiation and binding. >> >> My feeling is that, besides using worlds as mechanism, an explicit >> "discovery" >> context may be required (though I can't say much without further >> experimentations), specially when trying to figure out operations that >> don't >> produce a distinguishable value but rather change the state of computation >> (authenticating, opening a file, sending a message through the network, >> etc) >> or when doing remote discovery. >> >> For brokering (and I'm presuming the use of such entities, as I could not >> get >> rid of them in my mind so far), my first thought was that a chain of >> brokers >> of some sorts could be useful in the architecture where each could have >> specific ways of mediating discovery and negotiation through the "levels" >> (or >> narrowed options, providing isolation for some services. Worlds come to >> mind). >> >> During the "binding time", I think it would be important that some >> requirements of the client could be relaxed or even be tagged optional to >> allow the module to execute at least a subset of its features (or to >> execute >> features with suboptimal operations) when full binding isn't possible -- >> though this might require special attention to guarantee that eg. >> disabling >> optional features don't break the execution. >> >> Further, different versions of services may require different kinds of >> pre/post-processing (eg. initialization and finalization routines). When >> abstracting a service (eg. storage) like this, I think it's when the "glue >> code" starts to require sophistication (because it needs to fill more >> blanks)...and to have it automated, the provider will need to make >> requirements to the client as well. This is where I think a common >> vocabulary >> will be more necessary. >> >> -- >> Thiago >> >> Excerpts from Alan Kay's message of 2013-02-12 16:12:40 -0300: >> > Hi Jeff >> > >> > I think "intermodule communication schemes" that *really scale* is one >> of the most important open issues of the last 45 years or so. >> > >> > It is one of the several "pursuits" written into the STEPS proposal >> that we didn't use our initial efforts on -- so we've done little to >> advance this over the last few years. But now that the NSF funded part of >> STEPS has concluded, we are planning to use much of the other strand of >> STEPS to look at some of these neglected issues. >> > >> > There are lots of facets, and one has to do with messaging. The idea >> that "sending a message" has scaling problems is one that has been around >> for quite a while. It was certainly something that we pondered at PARC 35 >> years ago, and it was an issue earlier for both the ARPAnet and its >> offspring: the Internet. >> > >> > Several members of this list have pointed this out also. >> > >> > There are similar scaling problems with the use of tags in XML and EMI >> etc. which have to be agreed on somehow >> > >> > >> > Part of the problem is that for vanilla sends, the sender has to know >> the receiver in some fashion. This starts requiring the interior of a >> module to know too much if this is a front line mechanism. >> > >> > This leads to wanting to do something more like LINDA "coordination" or >> "publish and subscribe" where there are pools of producers and consumers >> who don't have to know explicitly about each other. A "send" is now a >> general request for a resource. But the vanilla approaches here still >> require that the "sender" and "receiver" have a fair amount of common >> knowledge (because the matching is usually done on "terms in common"). >> > >> > For example, in order to invoke a module that will compute the sine of >> an angle, do you and the receiver both have to agree about the term "sine"? >> In APL I think the name of this function is "circle 1" and in Smalltalk >> it's "degreeSin", etc. >> > >> > Ted Kaehler solved this problem some years ago in Squeak Smalltalk with >> his "message finder". For example, if you enter 3. 4. 7 Squeak will >> instantly come back with: >> > 3 bitOr: 4 --> 7 >> > 3 bitXor: 4 --> 7 >> > 3 + 4 --> 7 >> > >> > For the sine example you would enter 30. 0.5 and Squeak will come up >> with: >> > 30 degreeSin --> 0.5 >> > >> > The method finder is acting a bit like Doug Lenat's "discovery" >> systems. Simple brute force is used here (Ted executes all the methods that >> could fit in the system safely to see what they do.) >> > >> > One of the solutions at PARC for dealing with a part of the problem is >> the idea of "send an agent, not a message". It was quickly found that >> defining file formats for all the different things that could be printed on >> the new laser printer was not scaling well. The solution was to send a >> program that would just execute safely and blindly in the printer -- the >> printer would then just print out the bit bin. This was known as PostScript >> when it came out in the world. >> > >> > The "Trickles" idea from Cornell has much of the same flavor. >> > >> > One possible starting place is to notice that there are lots more terms >> that people can use than the few that are needed to make a powerful compact >> programming language. So why not try to describe meanings and match on >> meanings -- and let there be not just matching (which is like a password) >> but "negotiation", which is what a discovery agent does. >> > >> > And so forth. I think this is a difficult but doable problem -- it's >> easier than AI, but has some tinges of it. >> > >> > Got any ideas? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Alan >> > >> > >________________________________ >> > > From: Jeff Gonis <jeff.go...@gmail.com> >> > >To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> >> > >Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> >> > >Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:33 AM >> > >Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message >> Oriented" >> > > >> > > >> > >I see no one has taken Alan's bait and asked the million dollar >> question: if you decided that messaging is no longer the right path for >> scaling, what approach are you currently using? >> > >I would assume that FONC is the current approach, meaning, at the risk >> of grossly over-simplifying and sounding ignorant, "problem oriented >> languages" allowing for compact expression of meaning. But even here, FONC >> struck me as providing vastly better ways of creating code that, at its >> core, still used messaging for robustness, etc, rather than using something >> entirely different. >> > >Have I completely misread the FONC projects? And if not messaging, >> what approach are you currently using to handle scalability? >> > >A little more history ... >> > > >> > > >> > >The first Smalltalk (-72) was "modern" (as used below), and similar to >> Erlang in several ways -- for example, messages were received with >> "structure and pattern matching", etc. The language was extended using the >> same mechanisms ... >> > > >> > > >> > >Cheers, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >Alan >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>________________________________ >> > >> From: Brian Rice <briantr...@gmail.com> >> > >>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> >> > >>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:54 AM >> > >>Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message >> Oriented" >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Independently of the originally-directed historical intent, I'll pose >> my own quick perspective. >> > >> >> > >>Perhaps a contrast with Steve Yegge's Kingdom of Nouns essay would >> help: >> > >> >> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>The modern post-Erlang sense of message-oriented computing has to do >> with messages with structure and pattern-matching, where error-handling >> isn't about sequential, nested access, but more about independent >> structures dealing with untrusted noise. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Anyway, treating the messages as first-class objects (in the Lisp >> sense) is what gets you there: >> > >>http://www.erlang.org/doc/getting_started/conc_prog.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>This question was prompted by a quote by Joe Armstrong about OOP[1]. >> > >>>It is for Alan Kay, but I'm totally fine with a relevant link. Also, >> > >>>"I don't know" and "I don't have time for this" are perfectly okay. >> > >>> >> > >>>Alan, when the term "Object oriented" you coined has been hijacked by >> > >>>Java and Co, you made clear that you were mainly about messages, not >> > >>>classes. My model of you even says that Erlang is far more OO than >> Java. >> > >>> >> > >>>Then why did you chose the term "object" instead of "message" in the >> > >>>first place? Was there a specific reason for your preference, or did >> > >>>you simply not bother foreseeing any terminology issue? (20/20 >> hindsight and such.) >> > >>> >> > >>>Bonus question: if you had choose "message" instead, do you think it >> > >>>would have been hijacked too? >> > >>> >> > >>>Thanks, >> > >>>Loup. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205976 >> > >>> (This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.) >> > >>>_______________________________________________ >> > >>>fonc mailing list >> > >>>fonc@vpri.org >> > >>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>-- >> > >>-Brian T. Rice >> > >>_______________________________________________ >> > >>fonc mailing list >> > >>fonc@vpri.org >> > >>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >fonc mailing list >> > >fonc@vpri.org >> > >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- >> []'s >> Thiago Silva >> http://www.metareload.com >> >> "We are either doing something or we are not; 'talking about' is a subset >> of 'not'." >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F >> DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may >> contain confidential information. >> If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, >> distribute or copy this message or >> attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify >> the sender immediately and delete >> this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the >> individual sender, except where the >> sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the >> University of Technology Sydney. >> Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. >> >> Think. Green. Do. >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F > DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may > contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, > distribute or copy this message or > attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the > sender immediately and delete > this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender, except where the > sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the > University of Technology Sydney. > Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. > > Think. Green. Do. > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
