Michael said:
> While not disagreeing with you re children, I don't understand what makes  
> this project extraordinary.

I think Michael is fending off what he perceives to be a mild attack on Smalltalk.
It's a shame I am not able to get his pluggin, then I could be more accurate, with my response. 
(I've unbolted everything from my Windows98 OS and rely on Firefox only).

However, I am simply saying that Intelligence is the product of a Reasoning Process, in all developed, sensitive creatures.
Reason is not Intelligence itself. It is more catalyctic, promotes development.
I see intelligence in animals as more and more measured by their level of reasoning than on the size of their brain or their capacity to merely store information. That appears to me  where science is taking us.
Thus, Reason as Mental Faculty has two main Functions. 
1. to support Analytic Thought (human)
2. to support Synthetic Behaviour (animal).
3. given, that our being is both animal and human.

Smalltalk according to Kays initial Mission Statement and Requirements Definition, is fairly strictly defined: the Mode of Communication and the Mode of Behaviour more peculiar to a child. 
He is following through with that original plan i.e. "Inventing the Future" thru' mind of a child.
It does work, that is all I can say, and  Micheal is right. 

At  66 I see the world differently.
I have the same faculty of Reason, together with  Immagination and Understanding, but I need to use it differently.  
Why must I be forced into the Synthethic Immaginative Behaviour of a Child or even a mature Ambitious Adult.
I need more Analyitic power from Smalltalk, to fit my more Senile demands.
Does that make sense?

A little Smalltalk tweaking will however increase it's Analytic, rather than Synthetic power.

regards
JW

---- Blake <blake at kingdomrpg.com> wrote: 
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:25:06 -0700, Michael Rueger <michael at impara.de>  
> wrote:
> 
> > I think you underestimate (small) children...
> > One of the most, both humbling and enlightening moments was realizing  
> > what the project by two girls actually meant:
> > http://www.squeakland.org/project.jsp?http://www.squeakland.org/fun_projects/KimsTour/Chyan&Janae.004.pr
> >
> > They came up with a fully parallel solution that every computer  
> > scientist would have shied away from...
> >
> > Michael
> >
> 
> While not disagreeing with you re children, I don't understand what makes  
> this project extraordinary.
>