Another object view - (was RE: copy yourself ?)

Sean Charles bibbers at onetel.net.uk
Wed May 28 11:08:34 UTC 2003


On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 07:44 AM, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>
>
>> Abraham Lincoln is said to have originated this joke:
>>
>>     X.  How many legs does a dog have,
>>         if you call a tail a leg?
>>     Y.  Five.
>>     X.  Wrong!  _Calling_ a tail a leg doesn't _make_ it a leg.
>
> I thought that was Mark Twain.  No matter...
Who cares, they're both dead now. Say what you like but I still regard 
'advanced education' as a form of 'intellectual intimidation' going back 
to the dark ages...how much as a race have we missed because somebody was 
'too afraid' of peer pressure etc etc the modern system of papers and all 
that absolutely sucks. It is a hindrance IMHO, and I'm not even an 
academic, which probably gives me a clearer view from the outside.

Long live Orphyreus...

>
>> An object can respond to a #mass message, but it can do that as
>> often as you please, and it still will NOT have physical mass.
>
> Really?  All my objects have some representation, be it electrons in a 
> computer, graphite/ink on paper, etc.  So they all possess mass.
>
>> Again, just because an object SAYS it has a volume doesn't mean it
>> DOES have a volume.
>
> See above...
>
Could you clarify 'above', my mail reader is upside down while I read this 
and meditate...

>>  I'm not sure whether you are confusing
>> *talking about* properties with actually possessing them
>> (but no matter how often I _say_ "I have $1000000" it still isn't true)
>
> That was the funny thing about the new-economy bubble:  there it 
> was/became true.
>
>> or whether you are confusing *simulating* properties with actually
>> possessing them (but not matter how often I *pretend* to have a
>> million dollars it still isn't true).
Go watch "The Million Pound Note" and you will realise the amount of 
energy radiated by even the prospect of large money has an effect. Con-men 
everywhere rely on it...

> Really?!  Now it seems to me that my morphs emit photons very nicely.  
> True, they use the computer's screen to do this, but this doesn't really 
> make a difference, does it?  I mean, we generally think of ourselves as 
> talking to each other even when there are implements inbetween, such as a 
> telephone.
>
Matrix Moment!


>> Was it Drew McDermott who wrote "Just because your AI program has
>> a procedure called UNDERSTAND that doesn't mean it understands
>> anything."
>
> But just because it has a DNU handler doesn't mean it doesn't understand.
> .. ;-)
>
>> The whole POINT of simulation is that it is NOT REALITY, only LIKE it.
>
> Hmm...I though the POINT of simulation is that it is a LOT like reality, 
> particularly in the aspect you are interested in.  And such 'simulations'
>  are also part of reality, and can interact rather forcefully with it.
I am curious: could you give an example of a forceful simulation that 
interacts with reality other than the obvious one of operator feedback, a 
rumble pack or worse.
>
> into the console.  However, giving a textual representation makes it 
> easier for *humans* to deal with the problem.
To me this is the whole point of it all. Until I can plug my brain into a 
chip and think like a Morph I am stuck with, for the most part, typing. I'
d go on about s/n ratios and stuff but what's the point. Essentially, text 
is the most concise form for *us* because of the way *we* exist. Until my 
goldfish expresses a desire to program Squeak I shall leave the 
fin-input-device on the drawing board. He only has seven second memory 
anyway so I just put up a ProgressMorph that takes eight seconds and then 
starts again!

Sean



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list