copy yourself ?

Richard A. O'Keefe ok at cs.otago.ac.nz
Mon May 26 21:51:46 UTC 2003


diegogomezdeck at consultar.com notes that
	[I] added to [his] phrase the wor[d] "physical".
	[He] only said: "real objects"
	(physicals are included, but other objects al[s]o are).
	
The text I was responding to was this:
	> 	The Object Orientation paradigm is good just because the
	> 	"computational objects" are similar to real objects (or objects we
	> 	perceive as reals (to be matrix-compatible)).

It is news to me that we are able to *perceive* any non-physical objects.
Yes, I know about the Platonic view that some people can apprehend the
Ideas directly.  In one of his books, Penrose seems to agree.  I think
they are wrong.  To quote a dictionary, "perception is the awareness
of things that you have by means of your senses", and even Plato and
Penrose would not claim that you apprehend the Ideas by means of your
senses.

On the other hand, there are those blocks the manipulation of which is
supposed to give you insight into four-dimensional space, so as Popper
once famously remarked "I may have to eat humble pie".



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list