Laurence Rozier wrote:
While there are certainly valuable insights in "Data & Reality" and I would agree that some data objects are merely "tools of thought", *many* objects have meaning and exist independent of our view/model. Quantum physics does tell us that the boundries of "things" are hard to define precisely but "things" themselves as aggregates are held together by forces of nature not by external views. A keyboard can be remapped in software and different people using it can have different views of the individual key "objects". Even the keyboard itself could be viewed differently - a word processor, game controller, or a cash register. However, any observer, human, machine or otherwise observer of measurable physical characteristics of the keyboard will not see any changes. The wave-functions underlying all of the sub-atomic particles making up that keyboard have a unique history going back at least to just after the big bang.
Thanks for the other comments.
On the "keyboard" analogy:
Consider if you move to a Dvorack layout on your keyboard instead of Qwerty. Then you might need to pry off all the keycaps and move them around. Suddenly you do not have "a keyboard". What you have is a collection of keycaps (perhaps some broken in the process of removing them) plus a base (perhaps with a keyboard switch or two damaged by prying). Your mind has followed this situation, where something you thought was an object has now been decomposed into multiple items, some of which even have subitems or subareas which are not obviously removable (broken switches soldered on the keyboard base) yet behave differently. To model this requires a lot of subtly with boundaries not being obvious -- with the boundaries fluidly moving around depending on the questions we have or the intent we have or the actions we take.
Or, what if, say, a rabid ocelot has just wondered into your office? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelot Suddenly your mental model of your entire office might shift to -- what item can I throw at the foaming-mouthed ocelot to keep it away from me and give me enough time to escape past it through the door? The closest thing at hand is the keyboard. Suddenly your mental model of the keyboard needs to switch from "data entry device" to "ocelot management system". You have to think about issues like will the cable be long enough if I throw it as-is or will the plug disconnect from the computer if hurled with enough force? Or will the computer itself move with it if I toss it? And all in an instant. So, suddenly your whole mapping of the possibilities and uses of your keyboard needs to change, and in less time than it takes that rabid ocelot to move from your door to your desk. A typical ST80 simulation of a computer could not be used in that way, but your mind can do it easily and quickly.
So there is a gap here between the flexibility of the way your brain models physical objects and processes and intent and the way we build limited computer models using ST80. Your brain makes the switch in microseconds; it might take weeks or months to change a simulation of a keyboard as data input to keyboard as thrown object (let alone model a rabid ocelot :-). And there remain subtle problems -- is the keyboard an independent "object" if you have to think about the cable and how it is attached to another independent "object, the computer? Perhaps this set of problems is just solvable with a good class library; if so, I haven't seen it yet. :-) Perhaps the latest version of Inform? http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7/Inform%207.html But even there, it seems like a lot of hand crafting of rules specific to the needs of the story. Essentially, our minds' model of reality is much more subtle and fluid than that of "object" even if we appear to be seeing them all the time. And it works so well we don't even notice these abrupt shifts in representation -- except perhaps when we laugh as a perspective shifting joke. :-) Consider: http://www.funsulting.com/september_2004_newsletter.html From there: "Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any [American] Indian."
Our mind has a much deeper and greater and more flexible command of the notion of "objects" and "classes" in relation to "need" or "intent" than the Smalltalk environment has, at the very least. And these perspective shifts are often the basis of creativity. And it is exactly enhancing creativity which is Smalltalk's stated design goal. So maybe we need a software modeling environment for modeling jokes about objects and classes. :-) Again from the above link: """Research has linked the creative and humor portions of our brains. Several studies showed that humor leads to creativity. One of the most creative uses of humor is seen in the comedic style of Stephen Wright. His one liner’s take normal everyday concepts and show us a creative, and playful, way of seeing them. Here are some examples: “I spilled Spot Remover on my dog... Now he's gone.” “I went to a general store. They wouldn't let me buy anything specifically.” Many of us hear his jokes and immediately see the humor in the different perspective. Interestingly, by exposing ourselves to this kind of humor, we are also more likely to be creative. Since the creative process involves seeing new things or new points of view, humor is a logical jump starter to creativity.""" Maybe, ultimately, the problem with Smalltalk and its very rigid class based view of the world is it is too serious a programming environment? Maybe it needs to lighten up a little? Learn to laugh at itself? :-) How would one even begin to tell a joke (and get laughter in response) in Smalltalk-80?
As someone else in the thread put it, it is a general principle of mathematical model building what we are just making a simplification of reality for our purposes. I'll agree, but I will still not let Smalltalk off the hook -- since our mind is able to build and rebuild these models seemingly in an instant -- even in the punch line of a joke -- whereas Smalltalk coding takes a long time. And I only hold ST80 to such high standards as it aspires to them (forget about C++; no hope of a sense of humor there. :-) '
There is some sort of mismatch going on here between the mind and Smalltalk's object model. What it is in its entirety I am not sure. But clearly the tools at hand in Smalltalk-80 can't match the minds flexibility in object-oriented (and other) modeling. Yet it is very much a stated design goal in Dan's original paper to have the Smalltalk software environment be a good match for how the mind actually works. So, here, as exemplified by humor, we have a mismatch. Essentially, Smalltalk code isn't funny. :-)
Granted eToys may be "fun", but that is not the same as being "funny". How could you tell a joke to eToys and have it laugh? Or how could eToys invent new jokes and tell them to you for your approval? Perhaps this starts to border on AI?
Anyway, writing this inspired me to Google on programs that invent jokes, and I got this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5275544.stm """Computer scientists in Scotland developed the program for children who need to use computerised speech aids. The team said enabling non-speaking children to use puns and other jokes would help them to develop their language and communication skills. The researchers admitted some of the computer-generated puns were terrible, but said the children who had tried the technology loved them. ...Children using the software can choose a word or compound word, which will form some or all of the punch line, from the system's dictionary. The program then writes the joke's opener. It works by comparing the selected word with other words in its dictionary for phonetic similarity or concepts that link the words together, and then fits them into a pun template. ... Dr Waller said: "The kids have been superb, they have taken to the software like fish to water. They have been regaling everybody with their jokes." She said it seemed to have boosted their confidence as well as their language skills. "It gives these kids the ability to control conversations, perhaps for the first time, it gives them the ability to entertain other people. And their self-image improves too." """
Related web sites: http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/awaller/research.asp http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/standup/ From the last: "We are exploring how humour may be used to help non-speaking children learn to use language more effectively. There is evidence to suggest that language play, including using puns and other jokes, has a beneficial effect on a child's developing language and communication skills. Children with communication impairments are often reliant on augmented communication aids in order to carry on conversations, but these aids give little scope for generating novel language. This inhibits experimentation with language and limits the trying out of humorous ideas, which can in turn have a stultifying effect on language development. We propose to address this deficiency in the language environment of the non-speaking child by providing a software tool which promotes humorous language play. Starting from our previous research on the automated generation of punning riddles, we will design and implement a program which allows the user to experiment with the construction of simple jokes. The user interface of this system will be specially designed to be accessible to children with communication and physical disabilities. We will then test the efficacy of the system by observing and evaluating the use of the software by the children."
Perhaps there in Dr. Waller's lab is the future of Smalltalk? :-)
Today, more and more so-called information systems are being used not just for description but to augment/effect the external world. In this evolving hyperlinked meshverse of simulation and "reality"http://www.meshverse.com/2006/11/20/hyperlinking-reality/, data often enters into a symbiotic relationship with "reality" where changing views can change "reality". The "real" Mars Climate Orbiterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiterobject was destroyed because it was dependent on the data a model object had. If one accepts that a paradigm shift is underway which Croquet offers something of value in, then there are important ramificationshttp://croquet.funkencode.com/2006/04/24/the-64-billion-dollar-question/for database and language choices.
Thanks for the links. I'll agree that as the "noosphere" or "nooverse" continues to develops, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere we'll see more bridging of mental models (incarnated in computers or not) and the physical world, where such abstract constructs have unexpected effects on the physical world. I heop this project has poticve effects in that direction (intended to be a GPL'd matter replicator, which can reproduce itself): http://reprap.org/ Still, we have been seeing this link of model (data) and reality for some time, and not just on an individual level -- I'm sure we've all had to deal with government bureaucracies or corporate hierarchies or classroom settings where our problem or need did not match the pigeonholes or procedures the organization had for dealing with individuals (especially creative ones. :-) How does a bureaucracy deal with humor? It often can't. Consider: "The Soviet Joke Book" http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pv/courses/sovrus/jokes.html An anecdote told during the Brezhnev era: Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were all travelling together in a railway carriage, when unexpectedly the train stopped. Stalin put his head out of the window and shouted, "Shoot the driver!" But the train didn't start moving. Khrushchev then shouted, "Rehabilitate the driver!" But it still didn't move. Brezhnev then said, "Comrades, Comrades, let's draw the curtains, turn on the gramophone and let's pretend we're moving!" After Gorbachev came to power another line was added, in which he suggests: "Comrades, let's get out and push."
The history of Smalltalk-80 is itself an example of that -- ST80 didn't fit Steve Job's model when he saw it, so he ignored most of it, and gave us only the GUI window part in the Macintosh. Or considering my comments above, essentially, Steve did not get most of the joke. :-) The idea of making source and development tools available to end users did not match the notion of run-time fees, so we ended up with an absurd focus on "packaging" and "image stripping" and "shrinking" even to this day, so again considering the above, ParcPlace did not see the humor in a free Smalltalk. :-) But now we do.
--Paul Fernhout