On Fri, 23 May 2003 15:14:13 +0300 , Lex Spoon wrote
> I think of objects as having "common sense", unlike physical "objects".
> It's my favorite part about objects, that they can do basic things 
> for themselves.  (And through composition, "basic" things for high-level
> objects are themslevs prewwy powerful).
> 
> A better word might have been "actor", but that was taken already. 
>  :) It's what Macromedia Director calls its objects, though.
> 
> Lex

i think of objects as NOT having common sense. i think, we can get a copy of 
an object A only if there is someone who knows how to make a new object 
looking like A. the one who knows how to copy an object is a replicator. but 
my opinion is to think in terms that replicator cannot replicate 
itself...there must be "something" replicating it.

you said that you like objects which can do basic things for themselves. my 
opinion is that no object exists "on its own" but is surrounded by an 
environment. i do not think that objects have something like "self" but 
rather that we attribute "self" to them.