Squeak-dev June 2001

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

122 participants
362 discussions

Re: mail dropout :-(
by Doug Way 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

"Noel J. Bergman" wrote: > > > I think it's probably high time to move the list off the UIUC server. > > Since the list is already mirrored on eGroups > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/squeak), all that would have to happen would > be for people to subscribe to the group, unsubscribe from the list, and > start posting to squeak(a)egroups.com, instead of squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu. Since > the lists are mirrors, nothing is lost as people migrate. > > The migration should be painless, since the mirroring is already in place. > The last person on the UIUC server would still see all of the messages, > barring server failures at UIUC. Not a bad idea, although running a list directly on eGroups/Yahoo means that there are ads attached to email posts, which can be annoying. I think a privately run list would be preferable, since we have a few offers. - Doug Way dway(a)riskmetrics.com

1 0

CAS and Squeak (evolved from: Squeakland Evolution project thingy ;-))
by Sam Adams 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Rob, Ahh, now you're talking. I too have been long fascinated by the dynamics of complex systems, especially emergent behavior. Hollands "Hidden Order" is a great source of ideas and approaches for complex software systems. Anyone up for implementing ECHO in Squeak? Also, Kauffman's previous work "At Home in the Universe" contains an excellent but simple experiment to describe his NK models (the buttons and string example) that would make a great interactive essay. Almost 5 years ago, Steve Burbeck and I implemented something akin to his random boolean networks in Squeak as part of our research into Self Configuring Systems at IBM. It's truly amazing how quickly such system's lock into the "frozen" or "highly ordered" regime, even starting from a completely (pseudo)random network of interacting nodes with random goals. Very counterintuitive. This research has led us to develop techniques for harnessing and steering emergent behavior in the service of some very ambitious research goals, namely human-like cognition in machines. Yes, in Squeak. Most of the details are all under wraps of course and we expect a number of years of work ahead to achieve the goal, but some of the progress we are making is very promising. Think feedback loops, lots of them, intersecting each other, then go and contemplate a whirlpool vortex in your local creek or bathtub for awhile. Sorry, flush toilets won't do, on either side of the equator. ;-) While I'm on the subject of complex adaptive systems (CAS) and Squeak, has anyone spent any cycles considering the irreversibility of a Squeak image? Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate in chemistry, wrote an excellent if difficult book on complexity and irreversibility called "Order out of Chaos", back in 1989, but it seems to be out of print. I haven't read his latest work, "The End of Certainty : Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature" by Isabelle Stengers and Ilya Prigogine, but it seems to be on the same track. His preoccupation with the so called "Arrow of Time" could be very enlightening if applied to software development, especially in the dynamical social context of the Squeak community. FYI, I recently found an excellent online introduction to Chaos and Complexity in a rather unorthodox place, http://www.cna.org/isaac/lw1.pdf. Warning, its a bit of a fat download for the narrowbanded. Regards, Sam Sam S. Adams, IBM Distinguished Engineer, IBM Research tie line 444-0736, outside 919-254-0736, email: ssadams(a)us.ibm.com <<Hebrews 11:6, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:16-17, I Corinthians 1:10>> "Withers, Robert" To: "'squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu'" <squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu> <rwithers@qual cc: laby.com> Subject: RE: Squeakland Evolution project thingy 05/31/2001 11:46 AM Please respond to squeak Sam, Sorry about that. You're absolutely right; we shouldn't go into the faith issues. I meant to question technical merits of evolution, as opposed to other mechanisms describing organic system formation, with the goal of doing simulations in Squeak. I am intrigued by a system capable of negotiating distributed meta-services with feedback mechanisms to drive configuration and activity. John Holland developed the original "Selectrons" system that used a blackboard and a bucket brigade feedback mechanism. He was simulating thought processes. Rob PS. is there an essay on comparative religion from an Islamic perspective about? That would be interesting! -----Original Message----- From: Sam Adams [mailto:ssadams@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:06 AM To: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Squeakland Evolution project thingy After carefully reading the many recent posts on this topic, I would like to strongly suggest that those on the list who want to discuss matters of faith, and that includes the faith in evolution, chaos, complexity, or God, please take them to another forum. As I understand it, the Squeak community is one based on a common interest in using and advancing certain software technologies, not personal ideologies (scientific, religious, or otherwise). It is one thing to discuss astrophysical simulation (at any scale) or generative variation/selection (evolutionary) algorithms, but this "we, the enlightened of science" vs "they, the endarkened of faith" kind of discussion presumes a uniformity of belief on this list and presses a defacto statement of faith on its membership. I do not think any of us either believe this uniformity exists or want this result, so please have some consideration for those of your Squeak "brethren"(and "sistren" !) who may not share your ideology or wish to discuss it on this list. Do we really want this already very full list to be cluttered with such things? If you quote Dawkins or Kaufman (both of which I read), not for technical reference but in defense of your ideology, how would you react if others quote Jesus, Paul, or selections from Ecclesiastes (which I also read, and believe) with equal force in defence of theirs? Innapropriate for the list? "Go and do likewise" - Jesus As for the *content* of applications that some member of the list *uses* Squeak to create, I do not believe the list should stand in judgement as an open forum. What anyone posts on BobsSuperSwiki, like any swiki, is their own responsibility, unless of course the swiki master sets and enforces limits. This should be true for the 8 year old in an open school, the members of SqC or anyone else. How would you react to a long discussion on the list of the literary and spiritual merits of an interactive essay on the book of Philippians or, say, an interactive essay on comparative religion from an Islamic perspective? But would that essay be allowed on the SuperSwiki as an example use of Squeak technology? My point is this. If we succeed in creating a truly wonderful environment for dynamic and interactive media, and succeed in getting many in the world to use it, they will create there own content without our permission or ideological agreement. As a technologist, that is what I expect and that's good enough for me. As a christian, I choose to take my stand on matters of faith in other forums. Go and do likewise. Sam S. Adams, IBM Distinguished Engineer, IBM Research tie line 444-0736, outside 919-254-0736, email: ssadams(a)us.ibm.com <<Hebrews 11:6, Proverbs 3:5-6, Romans 1:16-17, I Corinthians 1:10>>

1 0

Jump to page: