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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson > <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> *Date: *Thursday, July 19, > 2018 at 1:05 PM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group' <friam@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-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus > Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM *To:* The Friday > Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson > <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> *Date: *Thursday, July 19, > 2018 at 8:32 AM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group' <friam@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-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus > Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM *To:* The Friday > Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen > <geprope...@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 > <mar...@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/
============================================================ 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
