Glen wrote:
"All you've done is pass the buck from "self" to "me". And given the hijinks Roger pulled with Swarm, self might respond to "jump" one day, but throw an error the next ... just like, say, today I can throw a baseball with my right arm. But if I break that arm, tomorrow I might not be able to throw the base ball. So, who's "me" in this temporal game? The receiver of the signal or the arm that does the throwing?" I claim a message send is analogous to an axon firing, where there is at least one target neuron for each receivable message. The whole graph and instantaneous charge state of the neurons and the musculature/skeleton/etc. attached to them is the `self'. The edges and effective edges in the graph (apparently) come and go depending on experience. In terms of comparing selves, I think one needs to look at the graphs in terms of the behaviors they exhibit and not their internal wiring. My wiring of yellow can be different from yours. Your perception of throwing a baseball will change with and without a broken arm, not just because the arm might not work, but also because the broken arm will lead to the motor system changing due to the lack of practice with throwing. Probably there are subgraphs that are more stable configurations than others. Marcus ________________________________ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 5:54:23 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the self All you've done is pass the buck from "self" to "me". And given the hijinks Roger pulled with Swarm, self might respond to "jump" one day, but throw an error the next ... just like, say, today I can throw a baseball with my right arm. But if I break that arm, tomorrow I might not be able to throw the base ball. So, who's "me" in this temporal game? The receiver of the signal or the arm that does the throwing? On 08/07/2017 02:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > In Smalltalk and Objective C "self" is an alias for any receiver object from > the point of view of that object. > > E.g. if someone tells me to "jump" I can implement that by sending them a > "howHigh" message, or I can send that message to my(self)! > > self is a handle to the stuff in me, especially the methods I implement. > Different people have different stuff. > Some folks mix-in methods they model in others and some do not. Others > can't imagine doing mix-ins and only can get their head around inheritance. > (Very tribal are they!) > > Some full stop when they see objects they don't understand. Others just send > crap to each other all day. -- ☣ 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
