Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Gillian Densmore]

Someone needs to make the joke:
Nick you see an object are things. Tires coins. that strange drink some
lady at TraderJoes had tap, Some things like this type of joke is called a
silly (polite) or smartass (30+) answers

Thank you thank! I'll be at the Cabana of Humor all week :P




On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Thanks, Eric, for responding.
>
>
>
> Life, here, is very complicated, right at the moment, but I wanted to
> answer one of your comments, strait-away.
>
>
>
> *Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also
> happen in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact
> same time my eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain
> through such (over-)simplification*
>
>
>
>
>
> What I gain from the over simplification is humbleness, the same
> humbleness that is so eloquently expressed in you extended passage.  At the
> risk of irritating Glen (which I truly strive not to do; I have supped too
> often at his table),  the Real can only consist of the validation of some
> expectation of experience arising from an earlier experience.  I once tried
> to rescue a litter of wild kittens.  I kept stepping on them because they
> never learned to watch my EYES.   They were too focused on my feet to
> figure out what was going to happen next.  I might respond to your critique
> by conceding that the sequence of experiences is more like a braid than a
> thread, but I think it is a sequence.  But past, present, and future are of
> course themselves experiences, and it is an accomplishment, not God given,
> to distinguish between or our present experiences, our memories and our
> expectations for the future.
>
>
>
> I hope to get another crack at your email before I go to bed tonight.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:26 PM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "the validator of our senses can only be our senses" waaay
> oversimplifies the set of experiences.  If there were only 1 type of
> experience, then you'd be right.  But there are (at least) many types of
> experience.  And 1 experience of one type can "validate" a different
> experience of an entirely different type.
>
> >
>
> > Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also
> happen in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact
> same time my eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain
> through such (over-)simplification.
>
>
>
> Yes, I was going to say something similar, and couldn’t figure out how to
> say it so that it would be constructive rather than sounding like I was
> trying to pick a fight (which I assure you, I never am; enough fights pick
> me already which I wish to get out of).
>
>
>
> So many of these statements read, to me, as if they are asserting that the
> structures of sense-data are some kind of self-evident bottleneck, or
> conversely, that they are privileged in some correspondingly self-evident
> way.  I get this impression from reading Russell’s emphasis on the role of
> sense data, in either Problems of Philosophy or History of Western
> Philosophy (I forget which now).
>
>
>
> My sense data deliver essentially nothing direct about colliding black
> holes, or colliding neutron stars, or rotating black hole accretion disks'
> emitting gamma rays and ultra-high-energy neutrinos.  (More specifically,
> they deliver essentially nothing direct about whatever makes these
> phenomena their particular selves, different from all the other phenomena
> that they are not.)  Anything I or anyone else knows about those subjects
> and phenomena is distilled from unbelievably elaborate prosthetic systems,
> which appeal, not so much to any particular sensory event, as to the
> ability to coreograph such events in ways that are selective of certain
> kinds of patterns.  And then there is the whole edifice of logic, math, and
> language to organize it all and make it navigable.  What comes out of all
> that, however, is a formal model of an external universe that is as worthy
> of trust as anything my mind is capable of holding.
>
>
>
> That to say, I guess, that from a few bricks, the number of different
>

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Congrats on explicitly broaching Complexity without the obligatory buzzword! 
8^)  But you've raised an important point about the inaccessibility of the 
noumenal that also includes a practical programming paradigm: 
"aspect-orientation".  I've tried to combine AoP principles with Ziegler's 
"facets" to realize a kind of aspect-oriented modeling.  I don't really market 
my methods.  But it works for me.

The point is to admit what B.C. Smith calls "the ontological wall", yet still 
try to formalize every perspective/approach you can toward that thing you can't 
fully reach, to circumscribe it as completely as you can.  That includes both 
primitive measurements (like direct sensation) and derived measures, i.e. 
measures of measures. And you can play "mind games" by swapping in and out 
various different logics (including both axioms in a single logic or entirely 
different logics) to extrapolate beyond the ontological wall, to explore 
alternative metaphysics and select against those that everyone dislikes.  (We 
do this practically with multi-paradigm modeling, i.e. multiple implementations 
of the same interface using, say, rules-based vs. continuum -- ODE/PDE -- 
solvers.)

The question raised in the first Open-Ended Evolution (OEE1) meeting was 
whether such *layering* (different types of houses with the same bricks -- 
regular tilings -- and/or different types of houses with different bricks -- 
e.g. Penrose Tiling) increases or decreases the systemic degrees of freedom. ?? 
 At the meeting, there were plenty of people on both sides.  And I haven't 
followed any attempts to follow up and *prove* it one way or the other.  So, it 
would be very cool to hear any opinions on it or whether the question's been 
settled.

On 07/19/2018 02:38 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> That to say, I guess, that from a few bricks, the number of different kinds 
> of houses that can be built combinatorially is far greater than the count of 
> the types of bricks.  So the limits on what patterns can be apprehended seems 
> to be very obscurely related to the limits of senses.

-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 02:01:07PM +, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
> complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
> psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and 
> occult."
> 
> 
> Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..
> 
> 
> https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53
> 
> http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html
> 
> http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
> https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit
> 
> 

All these seem to be arguments against what I call OO purism. An OO
purist tends to see things in terms of UML diagrams, and a 1-1
relationship between the UML diagram and the code. This leads to
limited flexibility (ie code fragility), and to be quite frank, at
times confusing code.

For me the techniques of OOP (by which I mean attaching methods to a
collection of data, and only that) are simply tools in a
toolbox, amongst many others.

Inheritance is great for code reusability, composition much
less so (requiring much more error prone plumbing code). The isa
versus hasa distinction needn't apply, but can be useful for rasoning
or modelling, but not always.

(Dynamic) Polymorphism can be useful for
containers of similarly behaving things that have distinctly different
data structures. I tend to use generic programming and duck typing
otherwise.

Encapsulation is extremely important to maintain invariants
- where the state of two fields depend on each other, they should be
encapsulated to prevent their values getting out of sync. Otherwise,
it is generally more useful to expose members directly as public (a
bit more thought is required with APIs, of course). And don't get me
started on getters/setters. If an attribute has both a getter and
setter (particularly trivial ones), it is a code smell that it really
should be a public attribute. I have seen encapsulation taken to such
extremes that code becomes difficult to understand and debug.

And as for patterns, I have sympathy for the person who said that
patterns make up for deficiencies in a language. The classic example
might be the Singleton pattern making up for an absence of global
variables in Java. I haven't read the GoF book, but have seen some
disasterous applications of patterns to code, that obscure and
complexify things unnecessarily. Nevertheless, I do use some patterns
(that I don't believe are in the GoF book), particularly for
multithreading (cf active object), or my favourite the lazy
instantiator:

inline Foo& foo()
{
  static Foo f;
  return f;
}  


This pattern (which is actually a kind of Singleton) is required to
get around C++'s link time ordering problem. You must make sure foo()
is called at least once before any multithreading is started though,
perhaps by setting a static variable in the main.cc file, otherwise
you end up with a race condition.

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[David Eric Smith]

Thanks Nick,

> Life, here, is very complicated, right at the moment, but I wanted to answer 
> one of your comments, strait-away.  
>  
> Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also happen 
> in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact same time my 
> eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain through such 
> (over-)simplification

This was actually Glen’s comment, which gave me the courage to pick up the 
topic in the paragraph I added.  But all good to pick up this thread wherever 
is productive.

All best,

Eric


> What I gain from the over simplification is humbleness, the same humbleness 
> that is so eloquently expressed in you extended passage.  At the risk of 
> irritating Glen (which I truly strive not to do; I have supped too often at 
> his table),  the Real can only consist of the validation of some expectation 
> of experience arising from an earlier experience.  I once tried to rescue a 
> litter of wild kittens.  I kept stepping on them because they never learned 
> to watch my EYES.   They were too focused on my feet to figure out what was 
> going to happen next.  I might respond to your critique by conceding that the 
> sequence of experiences is more like a braid than a thread, but I think it is 
> a sequence.  But past, present, and future are of course themselves 
> experiences, and it is an accomplishment, not God given, to distinguish 
> between or our present experiences, our memories and our expectations for the 
> future. 
>  
> I hope to get another crack at your email before I go to bed tonight. 
>  
>  
> Nick 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>  
>  
> > On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:26 PM, uǝlƃ ☣  > <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > "the validator of our senses can only be our senses" waaay oversimplifies 
> > the set of experiences.  If there were only 1 type of experience, then 
> > you'd be right.  But there are (at least) many types of experience.  And 1 
> > experience of one type can "validate" a different experience of an entirely 
> > different type.
> > 
> > Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also 
> > happen in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact 
> > same time my eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain 
> > through such (over-)simplification.
>  
> Yes, I was going to say something similar, and couldn’t figure out how to say 
> it so that it would be constructive rather than sounding like I was trying to 
> pick a fight (which I assure you, I never am; enough fights pick me already 
> which I wish to get out of).
>  
> So many of these statements read, to me, as if they are asserting that the 
> structures of sense-data are some kind of self-evident bottleneck, or 
> conversely, that they are privileged in some correspondingly self-evident 
> way.  I get this impression from reading Russell’s emphasis on the role of 
> sense data, in either Problems of Philosophy or History of Western Philosophy 
> (I forget which now).
>  
> My sense data deliver essentially nothing direct about colliding black holes, 
> or colliding neutron stars, or rotating black hole accretion disks' emitting 
> gamma rays and ultra-high-energy neutrinos.  (More specifically, they deliver 
> essentially nothing direct about whatever makes these phenomena their 
> particular selves, different from all the other phenomena that they are not.) 
>  Anything I or anyone else knows about those subjects and phenomena is 
> distilled from unbelievably elaborate prosthetic systems, which appeal, not 
> so much to any particular sensory event, as to the ability to coreograph such 
> events in ways that are selective of certain kinds of patterns.  And then 
> there is the whole edifice of logic, math, and language to organize it all 
> and make it navigable.  What comes out of all that, however, is a formal 
> model of an external universe that is as worthy of trust as anything my mind 
> is capable of holding.  
>  
> That to say, I guess, that from a few bricks, the number of different kinds 
> of houses that can be built combinatori

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Eric, for responding.

 

Life, here, is very complicated, right at the moment, but I wanted to answer 
one of your comments, strait-away.  

 

Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also happen 
in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact same time my 
eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain through such 
(over-)simplification

 

 

What I gain from the over simplification is humbleness, the same humbleness 
that is so eloquently expressed in you extended passage.  At the risk of 
irritating Glen (which I truly strive not to do; I have supped too often at his 
table),  the Real can only consist of the validation of some expectation of 
experience arising from an earlier experience.  I once tried to rescue a litter 
of wild kittens.  I kept stepping on them because they never learned to watch 
my EYES.   They were too focused on my feet to figure out what was going to 
happen next.  I might respond to your critique by conceding that the sequence 
of experiences is more like a braid than a thread, but I think it is a 
sequence.  But past, present, and future are of course themselves experiences, 
and it is an accomplishment, not God given, to distinguish between or our 
present experiences, our memories and our expectations for the future. 

 

I hope to get another crack at your email before I go to bed tonight. 

 

 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

 

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:26 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ < <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> 
> geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> "the validator of our senses can only be our senses" waaay oversimplifies the 
> set of experiences.  If there were only 1 type of experience, then you'd be 
> right.  But there are (at least) many types of experience.  And 1 experience 
> of one type can "validate" a different experience of an entirely different 
> type.

> 

> Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also happen 
> in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact same time my 
> eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain through such 
> (over-)simplification.

 

Yes, I was going to say something similar, and couldn’t figure out how to say 
it so that it would be constructive rather than sounding like I was trying to 
pick a fight (which I assure you, I never am; enough fights pick me already 
which I wish to get out of).

 

So many of these statements read, to me, as if they are asserting that the 
structures of sense-data are some kind of self-evident bottleneck, or 
conversely, that they are privileged in some correspondingly self-evident way.  
I get this impression from reading Russell’s emphasis on the role of sense 
data, in either Problems of Philosophy or History of Western Philosophy (I 
forget which now).

 

My sense data deliver essentially nothing direct about colliding black holes, 
or colliding neutron stars, or rotating black hole accretion disks' emitting 
gamma rays and ultra-high-energy neutrinos.  (More specifically, they deliver 
essentially nothing direct about whatever makes these phenomena their 
particular selves, different from all the other phenomena that they are not.)  
Anything I or anyone else knows about those subjects and phenomena is distilled 
from unbelievably elaborate prosthetic systems, which appeal, not so much to 
any particular sensory event, as to the ability to coreograph such events in 
ways that are selective of certain kinds of patterns.  And then there is the 
whole edifice of logic, math, and language to organize it all and make it 
navigable.  What comes out of all that, however, is a formal model of an 
external universe that is as worthy of trust as anything my mind is capable of 
holding.  

 

That to say, I guess, that from a few bricks, the number of different kinds of 
houses that can be built combinatorially is far greater than the count of the 
types of bricks.  So the limits on what patterns can be apprehended seems to be 
very obscurely related to the limits of senses.

 

At least to me.

 

Eric

 

 

 

> 

> 

> On 07/19/2018 02:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

>> I was just making the banal philosophical point that the validator of our 
>> senses can only be our senses.  So a hunch “about the world” is nothing more 
>> than a hunch about future experiences of the world.  As Harmon would say, we 
>> can never touch the noumenal.

> 

> --

> ☣ uǝlƃ

> 

> =

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Eric Smith]

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 5:26 PM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> 
> "the validator of our senses can only be our senses" waaay oversimplifies the 
> set of experiences.  If there were only 1 type of experience, then you'd be 
> right.  But there are (at least) many types of experience.  And 1 experience 
> of one type can "validate" a different experience of an entirely different 
> type.
> 
> Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also happen 
> in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact same time my 
> eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain through such 
> (over-)simplification.

Yes, I was going to say something similar, and couldn’t figure out how to say 
it so that it would be constructive rather than sounding like I was trying to 
pick a fight (which I assure you, I never am; enough fights pick me already 
which I wish to get out of).

So many of these statements read, to me, as if they are asserting that the 
structures of sense-data are some kind of self-evident bottleneck, or 
conversely, that they are privileged in some correspondingly self-evident way.  
I get this impression from reading Russell’s emphasis on the role of sense 
data, in either Problems of Philosophy or History of Western Philosophy (I 
forget which now).

My sense data deliver essentially nothing direct about colliding black holes, 
or colliding neutron stars, or rotating black hole accretion disks' emitting 
gamma rays and ultra-high-energy neutrinos.  (More specifically, they deliver 
essentially nothing direct about whatever makes these phenomena their 
particular selves, different from all the other phenomena that they are not.)  
Anything I or anyone else knows about those subjects and phenomena is distilled 
from unbelievably elaborate prosthetic systems, which appeal, not so much to 
any particular sensory event, as to the ability to coreograph such events in 
ways that are selective of certain kinds of patterns.  And then there is the 
whole edifice of logic, math, and language to organize it all and make it 
navigable.  What comes out of all that, however, is a formal model of an 
external universe that is as worthy of trust as anything my mind is capable of 
holding.  

That to say, I guess, that from a few bricks, the number of different kinds of 
houses that can be built combinatorially is far greater than the count of the 
types of bricks.  So the limits on what patterns can be apprehended seems to be 
very obscurely related to the limits of senses.

At least to me.

Eric



> 
> 
> On 07/19/2018 02:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> I was just making the banal philosophical point that the validator of our 
>> senses can only be our senses.  So a hunch “about the world” is nothing more 
>> than a hunch about future experiences of the world.  As Harmon would say, we 
>> can never touch the noumenal.
> 
> -- 
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

"the validator of our senses can only be our senses" waaay oversimplifies the 
set of experiences.  If there were only 1 type of experience, then you'd be 
right.  But there are (at least) many types of experience.  And 1 experience of 
one type can "validate" a different experience of an entirely different type.

Not only can this happen in *sequence* as you assume.  But it can also happen 
in parallel.  My hand can feel the elephant's trunk at the exact same time my 
eyes can see the elephant.  It's not clear to me what you gain through such 
(over-)simplification.


On 07/19/2018 02:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was just making the banal philosophical point that the validator of our 
> senses can only be our senses.  So a hunch “about the world” is nothing more 
> than a hunch about future experiences of the world.  As Harmon would say, we 
> can never touch the noumenal.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

 

I was just making the banal philosophical point that the validator of our 
senses can only be our senses.  So a hunch “about the world” is nothing more 
than a hunch about future experiences of the world.  As Harmon would say, we 
can never touch the noumenal.

 

Nick

 

 

.  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 4:36 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Perhaps one could argue that the studiously acquired lens that allows one to 
think about the detailed mechanisms of a computer program is not helpful, nor 
anywhere close to correct and is not an efficient way to reason about the world 
outside the computer?

 

 

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I accept there are some default lenses, but of course one develops more 
specific and different lenses to see the world too.   I’m arguing that the 
default lens is not helpful as well as not anywhere close to correct.   It is 
not an efficient way to reason about the detailed mechanisms of a computer 
program.

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Marcus,

 

But it’s models all the way down, right? 

 

Furthermore, even for a dualist, your “biology” is the lens through which you 
see the world.  So, the idea that there is a world out there against which we 
can measure our representations of It is just silly, right?  All we have is 
representations of representations. 

 

That is what OOO seems to challenge, but I am hoping to save that conversation 
for when we can read Harmon together.  Right now I am just trying to get a grip 
on what you mean by coop. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Nick,

 

If I were programming in Cello <http://cidarlab.org/cello/> , then actual 
constraints of biology would influence me.   If I were programming an agent 
simulation for a system biology modeling project, what I understood about 
biology would go into that.

But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by biology.   Programming 
language features for typing or genericity are precise mathematical instruments 
that are best to understand on their own, without any vague or grandiose 
metaphors.

Also, I would discriminate between programming and computation.   There are 
many kinds of computation that would be interesting to consider separate from 
programming.   (Although `programming’ to me already has a broader meaning than 
it does for some.)

 

Marcus

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 8:32 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS of 
biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And your 
biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the cell.  We 
never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak. 

 

 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult."

 

Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..

 

https://

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

“Perhaps one could argue that the studiously acquired lens that allows one to 
think about the detailed mechanisms of a computer program is not helpful, nor 
anywhere close to correct and is not an efficient way to reason about the world 
outside the computer?”

In that case, one can combine a lens that informs how to construct computer 
programs with another lens that captures domain requirements and that enables 
experimentation using a more convenient language.
This goes by names like application, simulation, library, or embedded domain 
specific language (EDSL).

Some examples:

https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
http://www.gromacs.org/
http://halide-lang.org/
https://people.csail.mit.edu/yuantang/pochoir.html
https://github.com/RuleWorld/bionetgen
https://archives.haskell.org/projects.haskell.org/diagrams/


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Prof David West]

Perhaps one could argue that the studiously acquired lens that allows
one to think about the detailed mechanisms of a computer program is not
helpful, nor anywhere close to correct and is not an efficient way to
reason about the world outside the computer?

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I accept there are some default lenses, but of course one develops
> more specific and different lenses to see the world too.   I’m arguing
> that the default lens is not helpful as well as not anywhere close to
> correct.   It is not an efficient way to reason about the detailed
> mechanisms of a computer program.>  


> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson
>  *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group  *Date: *Thursday, July 19,
> 2018 at 1:05 PM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group'  *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>  


> Marcus,


>  


> But it’s models all the way down, right? 


>  


> Furthermore, even for a dualist, your “biology” is the lens through
> which you see the world.  So, the idea that there is a world out there
> against which we can measure our representations of It is just silly,
> right?  All we have is representations of representations.>  


> That is what OOO seems to challenge, but I am hoping to save that
> conversation for when we can read Harmon together.  Right now I am
> just trying to get a grip on what you mean by coop.>  


> N


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>  


> Nick,


>  


> If I were programming in Cello[1], then actual constraints of biology
> would influence me.   If I were programming an agent simulation for a
> system biology modeling project, what I understood about biology would
> go into that.> But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by 
> biology.
> Programming language features for typing or genericity are precise
> mathematical instruments that are best to understand on their own,
> without any vague or grandiose metaphors.> Also, I would discriminate between 
> programming and computation.
> There are many kinds of computation that would be interesting to
> consider separate from programming.   (Although `programming’ to me
> already has a broader meaning than it does for some.)>  


> Marcus


>  


> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson
>  *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group  *Date: *Thursday, July 19,
> 2018 at 8:32 AM *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group'  *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>  


> Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS
> of biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?
> And your biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion
> of the cell.  We never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak.>  


>  


>  


> N


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>  


> "Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in
> a complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture,
> society, psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are
> multifarious and occult.">  


> Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For
> starters..>  


> https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53>
>  http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html


> http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
> https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit> 


> 
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of glen
>  *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?>  


> Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the
> most important example Marcus raises of biology (because
> *everything* is biology 8^), even your historical account is a
> litany of WHAT, not WHY.
>
>  Sure it may seem like you're examining th

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

I accept there are some default lenses, but of course one develops more 
specific and different lenses to see the world too.   I’m arguing that the 
default lens is not helpful as well as not anywhere close to correct.   It is 
not an efficient way to reason about the detailed mechanisms of a computer 
program.

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 1:05 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Marcus,

But it’s models all the way down, right?

Furthermore, even for a dualist, your “biology” is the lens through which you 
see the world.  So, the idea that there is a world out there against which we 
can measure our representations of It is just silly, right?  All we have is 
representations of representations.

That is what OOO seems to challenge, but I am hoping to save that conversation 
for when we can read Harmon together.  Right now I am just trying to get a grip 
on what you mean by coop.

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Nick,

If I were programming in Cello<http://cidarlab.org/cello/>, then actual 
constraints of biology would influence me.   If I were programming an agent 
simulation for a system biology modeling project, what I understood about 
biology would go into that.
But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by biology.   Programming 
language features for typing or genericity are precise mathematical instruments 
that are best to understand on their own, without any vague or grandiose 
metaphors.
Also, I would discriminate between programming and computation.   There are 
many kinds of computation that would be interesting to consider separate from 
programming.   (Although `programming’ to me already has a broader meaning than 
it does for some.)

Marcus

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of Nick Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 8:32 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS of 
biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And your 
biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the cell.  We 
never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak.



N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?


"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult."



Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..



https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53

http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit


<http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop>


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most 
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology 
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY.

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But you're 
not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually doing in your 
list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the WHAT. And your 
inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will always just be your 
best guess at WHY.

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a complex 
and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult. 
No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

But it’s models all the way down, right?  

 

Furthermore, even for a dualist, your “biology” is the lens through which you 
see the world.  So, the idea that there is a world out there against which we 
can measure our representations of It is just silly, right?  All we have is 
representations of representations.  

 

That is what OOO seems to challenge, but I am hoping to save that conversation 
for when we can read Harmon together.  Right now I am just trying to get a grip 
on what you mean by coop.  

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:49 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Nick,

 

If I were programming in Cello <http://cidarlab.org/cello/> , then actual 
constraints of biology would influence me.   If I were programming an agent 
simulation for a system biology modeling project, what I understood about 
biology would go into that.

But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by biology.   Programming 
language features for typing or genericity are precise mathematical instruments 
that are best to understand on their own, without any vague or grandiose 
metaphors.

Also, I would discriminate between programming and computation.   There are 
many kinds of computation that would be interesting to consider separate from 
programming.   (Although `programming’ to me already has a broader meaning than 
it does for some.)

 

Marcus

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 8:32 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS of 
biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And your 
biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the cell.  We 
never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak.  

 

 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult."

 

Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..

 

https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53

http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit

 <http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop> 


  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object? 

 

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most 
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology 
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY. 

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But you're 
not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually doing in your 
list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the WHAT. And your 
inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will always just be your 
best guess at WHY. 

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a complex 
and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult. 
No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will fully circumscribe those causes. 
To think otherwise is to fool oneself into false belief ... a kind of 
faith-based world view.


On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:
>"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy
>and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of c

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Yep.  That's a fantastic example of metaphysical predisposition interfering 
with one's ability to reason well.  When I was a kid, my mom and I would argue 
a lot about whether animals had souls.  She claimed they absolutely did not.  
Being young, I had no real idea what a soul was.  But I would argue that her 
justification for her belief was all from her religion (Catholicism).  
*Practically*, her belief was exhibited when my beagle (Snoopy, of course) was 
killed by a car.  She tossed his body in the regular garbage and he was crushed 
and hauled away.  To this day, she has no idea why that was so horrible.


On 07/19/2018 09:15 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>  derive models *directly* from the biology (as directly as possible, anyway), 
> rather than going through us (obviously fallible) human abstraction machines. 
>  Machine learning is an attempt at this.  Teh *-omics are attempts at this.  
> Etc.  And while it's (currently) true that such modeling efforts remain, in 
> general, less efficient and effective at building useful models, they are 
> making some progress.  E.g. 
> https://www.news-medical.net/news/20180712/Study-suggests-database-analysis-better-predicts-toxicity-of-chemicals-than-animal-testing.aspx
>   >
> 
> This reminds me of how some say that dogs don't have shame or dogs don't love 
> you, etc. that the head-hanging is just an empty learned behavior to get 
> along with humans.
> Who says humans are any different?


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:



This reminds me of how some say that dogs don't have shame or dogs don't love 
you, etc. that the head-hanging is just an empty learned behavior to get along 
with humans.
Who says humans are any different?

Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Ha! I made a Trump by leaving out the word "not".  That should be "..., but it 
does not 'go without saying'."

On 07/19/2018 08:42 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> So, no, it does NOT go without saying that one's ideas influence the 
> programming.  It's true pretty much everywhere, but it does "go without 
> saying".


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

There's also a deeper objection to this than Marcus makes, that of "data 
driven" modeling.  I fight this battle all the time at biological modeling 
conferences.  Most modelers *do* develop models based on ideas ... or, more 
technically, abstract hypotheses about abstract things (e.g. lipophilicity).  
Their "best practices" suggest they can do that and then, later on, fill in 
those parameters/variables with numbers derived from actual measurements of 
experiments.  So, their conceptual models are then *enlightened* or guided by 
the real biology.  But the model's gist is still something very much like an 
"idea".

Data driven modeling takes a different approach.  It _attempts_ to derive 
models *directly* from the biology (as directly as possible, anyway), rather 
than going through us (obviously fallible) human abstraction machines.  Machine 
learning is an attempt at this.  Teh *-omics are attempts at this.  Etc.  And 
while it's (currently) true that such modeling efforts remain, in general, less 
efficient and effective at building useful models, they are making some 
progress.  E.g. 
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20180712/Study-suggests-database-analysis-better-predicts-toxicity-of-chemicals-than-animal-testing.aspx

So, no, it does NOT go without saying that one's ideas influence the 
programming.  It's true pretty much everywhere, but it does "go without saying".

Add to that my dead horse: that all ideas are actually biology, anyway, and it 
would be more accurate to say that a programmer's biology influences their 
programming.  And that's obviously true to any programmer who's put off going 
to the bathroom for just ONE MORE edit-compile-test iteration. 

On 07/19/2018 07:32 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS of 
> biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And your 
> biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the cell.  We 
> never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick,

If I were programming in Cello<http://cidarlab.org/cello/>, then actual 
constraints of biology would influence me.   If I were programming an agent 
simulation for a system biology modeling project, what I understood about 
biology would go into that.
But not all kinds of programming would be influenced by biology.   Programming 
language features for typing or genericity are precise mathematical instruments 
that are best to understand on their own, without any vague or grandiose 
metaphors.
Also, I would discriminate between programming and computation.   There are 
many kinds of computation that would be interesting to consider separate from 
programming.   (Although `programming’ to me already has a broader meaning than 
it does for some.)

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 8:32 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Well, it goes without saying, doesn’t it, that it’s your current IDEAS of 
biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And your 
biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the cell.  We 
never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak.



N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?


"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult."



Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..



https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53

http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit


<http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop>


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most 
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology 
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY.

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But you're 
not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually doing in your 
list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the WHAT. And your 
inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will always just be your 
best guess at WHY.

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a complex 
and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult. 
No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will fully circumscribe those causes. 
To think otherwise is to fool oneself into false belief ... a kind of 
faith-based world view.


On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy
>and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of cellular
>biology, and undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those influences and
>led the team that implemented the team that actually created the
>language at Xerox PARC."
>
>For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or
>neurotransmitters in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.The
>closest that comes to mind are functional reactive programming systems,
>e.g. game platforms tied to a physics engine.
>The idea that top-down intent matters is preposterous if the motivation
>is biology, a massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves
>physical stuff.


--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Well, it goes without saying, doesn't it, that it's your current IDEAS of
biology that influence your programming, not biology itself, right?  And
your biologiized ideas of programming then influence your notion of the
cell.  We never really know clouds themselves.  So to speak.  

 

 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture,
society, psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious
and occult."

 

Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..

 

https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e
53

http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit

 <http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop> 


  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >
on behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object? 

 

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY. 

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But
you're not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually
doing in your list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the
WHAT. And your inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will
always just be your best guess at WHY. 

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture,
society, psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious
and occult. No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will fully circumscribe
those causes. To think otherwise is to fool oneself into false belief ... a
kind of faith-based world view.


On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:
>"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy
>and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of cellular
>biology, and undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those influences and
>led the team that implemented the team that actually created the
>language at Xerox PARC."
>
>For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or
>neurotransmitters in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.The
>closest that comes to mind are functional reactive programming systems,
>e.g. game platforms tied to a physics engine.   
>The idea that top-down intent matters is preposterous if the motivation
>is biology, a massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves
>physical stuff.


-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

"Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a 
complex and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult."


Assuming there even was a Great Idea to go with a Great Man.  For starters..


https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53

http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop
https://content.pivotal.io/blog/all-evidence-points-to-oop-being-bullshit


<http://wiki.c2.com/?ArgumentsAgainstOop>


From: Friam  on behalf of glen 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:22:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most 
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology 
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY.

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But you're 
not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually doing in your 
list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the WHAT. And your 
inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will always just be your 
best guess at WHY.

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a complex 
and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult. 
No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will fully circumscribe those causes. 
To think otherwise is to fool oneself into false belief ... a kind of 
faith-based world view.


On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy
>and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of cellular
>biology, and undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those influences and
>led the team that implemented the team that actually created the
>language at Xerox PARC."
>
>For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or
>neurotransmitters in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.The
>closest that comes to mind are functional reactive programming systems,
>e.g. game platforms tied to a physics engine.
>The idea that top-down intent matters is preposterous if the motivation
>is biology, a massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves
>physical stuff.


--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[glen]

Of course it's reasonable for you to dissent! But over and above the most 
important example Marcus raises of biology (because *everything* is biology 
8^), even your historical account is a litany of WHAT, not WHY. 

Sure it may seem like you're examining the why of these artifacts. But you're 
not. Why questions are always metaphysical. What you're actually doing in your 
list and analysis of past events is inferring the WHY from the WHAT. And your 
inferences, no matter how good you are at inferring, will always just be your 
best guess at WHY. 

Like with the Great Man Theory, the actual causes of any phenomena in a complex 
and complicated system like Xerox Parc (embedded in culture, society, 
psychology, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc.) are multifarious and occult. 
No oversimplified *narrative* like yours will fully circumscribe those causes. 
To think otherwise is to fool oneself into false belief ... a kind of 
faith-based world view.


On July 19, 2018 3:01:57 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy
>and ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of cellular
>biology, and undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those influences and
>led the team that implemented the team that actually created the
>language at Xerox PARC."
>
>For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or
>neurotransmitters in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.The
>closest that comes to mind are functional reactive programming systems,
>e.g. game platforms tied to a physics engine.   
>The idea that top-down intent matters is preposterous if the motivation
>is biology, a massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves
>physical stuff.


-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

"The IDEA of Smalltalk derived from the IDEA of Simula; the philosophy and 
ideas of Englebart, Bush, Sutherland; the metaphor of cellular biology, and 
undoubtedly more. Alan Kay coalesced those influences and led the team that 
implemented the team that actually created the language at Xerox PARC."

For example, I don't see analogs of cytokines, hormones, or neurotransmitters 
in Smalltalk or any computing systems today.The closest that comes to mind 
are functional reactive programming systems, e.g. game platforms tied to a 
physics engine.   
The idea that top-down intent matters is preposterous if the motivation is 
biology, a massively-parallel bottom-up phenomena that involves physical stuff.

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Prof David West]

ponsibilities/functionality among objects).

davew







On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Glen, 
> 
> I am not sure what the "why-trap" is.  If you think me sometimes cagey, 
> it's usually because I am trying to not to say more than I know, and 
> when I am talking to computer folks about programming, I know so little 
> that it probably sounds like I am talking with my hands over my mouth.   
> I do think it's important for "civilians" to understand programmers' 
> world better than we do, and that requires developing some sort of 
> mediating language that does justice to civilians and experts alike.  
> 
> Nick 
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 4:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
> 
> Nick, Marcus does a good job of avoiding your "why" trap. But he doesn't 
> (usually) telegraph his (purposeful) rhetorical jitsu. 8^) I would posit 
> that OOP isn't really *designed* so much as it is evolved. Sure, there 
> are people afflicted with the Great Man Theory, thinking that OOP sprung 
> from the head of  fully formed. But the reality is 
> probably more mungy than that.
> 
> On July 18, 2018 10:23:17 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
> >For example, if all you have is an interface to a sort routine, and 
> >that sort happens to be a bubble sort -- an O(n^2) cost – you might 
> >avoid sorting if you had a lot of items to track, if only because you
> >observed the sort routine took a long time.   Or if your processor only
> >could do scalar math, you might not see the practical benefit in using
> >vector or matrix notation in a program.These are the types of
> >interfaces a vendor would provide a customer, and their properties can 
> >greatly influence how/if the customer approaches a problem.  Often it 
> >is not possible to look under the hood to see how they work.
> >
> >The point is that out of laziness or selfishness, artifacts are formed 
> >in ways that may not be well-suited to what would be optimal for a 
> >given problem, and that inertia that changes how new components are
> >built using them.   A simple organizational approach like OOP can’t
> >guide all kinds of technical decisions.  At best, it can 
> >compartmentalize and factor the compexlity, which unfortunately can 
> >mean sweeping deep algorithmic issues under the rug.
> >
> >From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 
> >
> >Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> >
> >Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 10:53 AM
> >To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> >
> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
> >
> >Marcus,
> >
> >Am I correct that this is what “oop” is designed to avoid?
> >
> >“This” being what you describe below?
> >
> >Nick
> --
> glen
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -


Another answer to your question, and those raised by the other responses
to yours is to another question... rather than literally about what OO
Programmers/Designers mean by "Object", but what features are most
useful to someone who *doesn't* write software or design systems.

It is worth noting that OO programming/design was not coined to create a
better way of thinking about problems or designing systems necessarily,
but rather to make up for the weaknesses in existing programming
languages which made it awkward to think about problems (and systems
designed to resolve them), compared to existing natural language
understandings of the problem.  

In that sense *you* already thing in *Objects* not dissimilar to the way
OO programming was crafted to allow programmers to formally specify them
and their interactions.

To start with, an *Object* is, in everyday vernacular a "thing", a
physical (or maybe not, but often very physical) thing you can see,
touch, maybe even hear and smell... and for the purposes of this
description, *interact with*.   Your kitchen toaster, your cat, the
chair you are sitting in, your house, are all pretty good examples of
"an Object".  

Key elements in OO thinking include Modularity, Composability,
Encapsulation, Abstraction and Inheritance.   

Modularity is fairly obvious perhaps...  you interact (usually) with
your *toaster*, *cat*, *chair*, *house*, not the molecules (or usually
even subcomponents) that they consist of (in some sense).   Modularity
and Composability is useful when you "set up a kitchen" with a
collection of cooking utensils, kitchen appliances, eating utensils,
etc... and even moreso if you have one of those multi-function devices
that can be a blender, a slicer, a dicer, a ricer, julienner, a
breadmaker, etc. 

 Encapsulation is important because you want to deal with a toaster via
it's declared (and apt/obvious/simple) interfaces such as the power cord
you plug into a (modular) wall outlet, the slots in the top where bread
goes in and toast comes out, the dial which sets the "brownness" and
maybe the lever that you push down to initiate "toasting" and maybe the
bell that goes off when the toast is ready.  You don't want to care
about the myriad details of wiring that leads to heating elements and
the springs and ratchets and levers and thermocouple that leads to your
toast lowering, cooking and popping up again...  Abstraction and
Inheritance are  a little more "abstract" but not unfamiliar.  

Your toaster is an *instance* of the (mechanical design) class
"toaster"... the former being something you can pick up, touch, plug
into the wall, put bread in and take toast out of... the latter you can
maybe see diagrams of on paper and discuss in abstract ways, but can
never actually touch or more importantly, use.  

A toaster (your kind) is an instance of a subclass of a more abstract
class called a "Kitchen Appliance" and maybe a bit of "An Electronic
Gadget"... and probably even of a more abstract class like "Oster" or
"Black and Decker".  There is no archetypical "Kitchen Appliance" nor
"Electronic Gadget" nor even "Oster" (though I think there is a
multi-function kitchen appliance-gadget called an Osterizer that is a
modular mashup of several abstract types of kitchen gadget"

Your toaster, your cat, your chair, your house, are all *instances* of
*classes* which *inherit* properties from *superclasses*...  A toaster
is an electromechanical device, a kitchen appliance, an electronic
gadget (esp. if it has a digital interface, etc.).  A Cat is a Felidae,
a Domestic Animal, a House Pet, a Friend, etc.   and *inherits*
properties from *all* of those abstract classes.   A chair is Furniture
with Household or Office style/utility/??? features, and is
conventionally  *composed of* a Seat, 4 Legs, a Back.   Three legged
stools, kneeling chairs, sitting balls, all break some or all of the
above... 

What you said about your Troybuilt and the B engine replacing the
Tecumseh (trusting Eric here) describes interfaces, abstraction and
modularity... the fact that the B engine *could* be strapped up to the
rest of the Tiller is a testimony to relatively well conceived
*interfaces* (or a very clever mechanic)...   The fact that "an engine
is an engine is an engine" is the Abstraction, though Eric's point that
the Tecumseh design was notoriously torque-y and a *tiller* application
would seem to demand/utilize more torque than a lawnmowing
application...   you either didn't stress it past it's operating modes
(all those times the tiller bogs down and the engine stalls?) or the
design had a good torque-converter in it to make up for the less
torque=y engine.

What you said about the tomato plants being "seven feet tall" I take to
be (mostly) hyperbole for illustrative purposes... I'm guessing they are
more like 4-5' tall, and I suspect you can attribute much of that tall
growth to the Miracle Grow you applied liberally along the way... 
though if your soil is 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Sorry, my reference to the "why trap" refers to teleology and the (apparent) 
success of science after it began focusing on "what" not "why".  As a 
pragmatist, I ass/u/me/d you'd understand that.  Mea culpa.

It's *literally* irrelevant what OOP was designed to do.  What matters is what 
it does/is.

On 07/18/2018 02:12 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I am not sure what the "why-trap" is.  If you think me sometimes cagey, it's 
> usually because I am trying to not to say more than I know, and when I am 
> talking to computer folks about programming, I know so little that it 
> probably sounds like I am talking with my hands over my mouth.   I do think 
> it's important for "civilians" to understand programmers' world better than 
> we do, and that requires developing some sort of mediating language that does 
> justice to civilians and experts alike.  

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

I am not sure what the "why-trap" is.  If you think me sometimes cagey, it's 
usually because I am trying to not to say more than I know, and when I am 
talking to computer folks about programming, I know so little that it probably 
sounds like I am talking with my hands over my mouth.   I do think it's 
important for "civilians" to understand programmers' world better than we do, 
and that requires developing some sort of mediating language that does justice 
to civilians and experts alike.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 4:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Nick, Marcus does a good job of avoiding your "why" trap. But he doesn't 
(usually) telegraph his (purposeful) rhetorical jitsu. 8^) I would posit that 
OOP isn't really *designed* so much as it is evolved. Sure, there are people 
afflicted with the Great Man Theory, thinking that OOP sprung from the head of 
 fully formed. But the reality is probably more mungy than 
that.

On July 18, 2018 10:23:17 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>For example, if all you have is an interface to a sort routine, and 
>that sort happens to be a bubble sort -- an O(n^2) cost – you might 
>avoid sorting if you had a lot of items to track, if only because you
>observed the sort routine took a long time.   Or if your processor only
>could do scalar math, you might not see the practical benefit in using
>vector or matrix notation in a program.These are the types of
>interfaces a vendor would provide a customer, and their properties can 
>greatly influence how/if the customer approaches a problem.  Often it 
>is not possible to look under the hood to see how they work.
>
>The point is that out of laziness or selfishness, artifacts are formed 
>in ways that may not be well-suited to what would be optimal for a 
>given problem, and that inertia that changes how new components are
>built using them.   A simple organizational approach like OOP can’t
>guide all kinds of technical decisions.  At best, it can 
>compartmentalize and factor the compexlity, which unfortunately can 
>mean sweeping deep algorithmic issues under the rug.
>
>From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 
>
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
>Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 10:53 AM
>To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>
>Marcus,
>
>Am I correct that this is what “oop” is designed to avoid?
>
>“This” being what you describe below?
>
>Nick
--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[glen]

Nick, Marcus does a good job of avoiding your "why" trap. But he doesn't 
(usually) telegraph his (purposeful) rhetorical jitsu. 8^) I would posit that 
OOP isn't really *designed* so much as it is evolved. Sure, there are people 
afflicted with the Great Man Theory, thinking that OOP sprung from the head of 
 fully formed. But the reality is probably more mungy than 
that.

On July 18, 2018 10:23:17 AM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>For example, if all you have is an interface to a sort routine, and
>that sort happens to be a bubble sort -- an O(n^2) cost – you might
>avoid sorting if you had a lot of items to track, if only because you
>observed the sort routine took a long time.   Or if your processor only
>could do scalar math, you might not see the practical benefit in using
>vector or matrix notation in a program.These are the types of
>interfaces a vendor would provide a customer, and their properties can
>greatly influence how/if the customer approaches a problem.  Often it
>is not possible to look under the hood to see how they work.
>
>The point is that out of laziness or selfishness, artifacts are formed
>in ways that may not be well-suited to what would be optimal for a
>given problem, and that inertia that changes how new components are
>built using them.   A simple organizational approach like OOP can’t
>guide all kinds of technical decisions.  At best, it can
>compartmentalize and factor the compexlity, which unfortunately can
>mean sweeping deep algorithmic issues under the rug.
>
>From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson
>
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>
>Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 10:53 AM
>To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>
>Marcus,
>
>Am I correct that this is what “oop” is designed to avoid?
>
>“This” being what you describe below?
>
>Nick
-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

For example, if all you have is an interface to a sort routine, and that sort 
happens to be a bubble sort -- an O(n^2) cost – you might avoid sorting if you 
had a lot of items to track, if only because you observed the sort routine took 
a long time.   Or if your processor only could do scalar math, you might not 
see the practical benefit in using vector or matrix notation in a program.
These are the types of interfaces a vendor would provide a customer, and their 
properties can greatly influence how/if the customer approaches a problem.  
Often it is not possible to look under the hood to see how they work.

The point is that out of laziness or selfishness, artifacts are formed in ways 
that may not be well-suited to what would be optimal for a given problem, and 
that inertia that changes how new components are built using them.   A simple 
organizational approach like OOP can’t guide all kinds of technical decisions.  
At best, it can compartmentalize and factor the compexlity, which unfortunately 
can mean sweeping deep algorithmic issues under the rug.

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 10:53 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Marcus,

Am I correct that this is what “oop” is designed to avoid?

“This” being what you describe below?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Nick writes:

“And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.”

In the real world of software, there are many frozen accidents.   The genesis 
of an initial building block leads to another being designed in a certain way, 
which brings with another set of idiosyncrasies, and so on.   After decades of 
this people start to believe that things must – in principle and in practice -- 
be a certain way.Software layering can be an obstacle to innovation once 
basic assumptions are called into question; it is easy to get stuck in local 
fitness maxima and a particular foundation.

Marcus

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of Nick Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

Am I correct that this is what “oop” is designed to avoid?  

 

“This” being what you describe below? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Nick writes:

 

“And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.”

 

In the real world of software, there are many frozen accidents.   The genesis 
of an initial building block leads to another being designed in a certain way, 
which brings with another set of idiosyncrasies, and so on.   After decades of 
this people start to believe that things must – in principle and in practice -- 
be a certain way.Software layering can be an obstacle to innovation once 
basic assumptions are called into question; it is easy to get stuck in local 
fitness maxima and a particular foundation.

 

Marcus

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Eric, 

The tomato plants are seven feet tall.  The end justifies the means.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Nick, how could you!

(about to get myself in trouble again for thinking I remember something that is 
probably wrong)

> Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to fail 
> and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine, pretty 
> much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can bolt a new 
> Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of course, I went 
> for the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked beautifully, but it 
> looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color was all wrong, but it 
> had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all the levers, and it did 
> the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes upon engine construction.  

I thought Troy Built tillers all came with Tecumseh engines, those big, slow, 
torquey things that I never saw on anything else.  Briggs and Stratton were for 
lawnmowers.  That almost seems as bad as (I am told) the generational shift 
when International Harvester began putting _truck engines_ in their tractors, a 
kind of betrayal that gets my farmer colleagues all red and hyperventilated.  
They say that was the end of the brand.   

I know that does not contribute to this thread.

Eric





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

“And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.”

In the real world of software, there are many frozen accidents.   The genesis 
of an initial building block leads to another being designed in a certain way, 
which brings with another set of idiosyncrasies, and so on.   After decades of 
this people start to believe that things must – in principle and in practice -- 
be a certain way.Software layering can be an obstacle to innovation once 
basic assumptions are called into question; it is easy to get stuck in local 
fitness maxima and a particular foundation.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

And like any modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to 
creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that as 
long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in a 
greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, 
then their work is a contribution to the whole.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Eric Smith]

Nick, how could you!

(about to get myself in trouble again for thinking I remember something that is 
probably wrong)

> Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to fail 
> and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine, pretty 
> much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can bolt a new 
> Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of course, I went 
> for the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked beautifully, but it 
> looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color was all wrong, but it 
> had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all the levers, and it did 
> the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes upon engine construction.  

I thought Troy Built tillers all came with Tecumseh engines, those big, slow, 
torquey things that I never saw on anything else.  Briggs and Stratton were for 
lawnmowers.  That almost seems as bad as (I am told) the generational shift 
when International Harvester began putting _truck engines_ in their tractors, a 
kind of betrayal that gets my farmer colleagues all red and hyperventilated.  
They say that was the end of the brand.   

I know that does not contribute to this thread.

Eric





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

You're poking at the difference between a type/class/protocol/interface versus 
an object/implementation.  There can be no difference in the type/class unless 
there's a difference in the objects that constitute that type/class.  So, your 
2 rats are of a type, implemented by different objects.  And your Tiller of 
Theseus has an invariant type, implemented by variations in 2 objects.  Or, 
said another way, your 2 rats and your 2 tillers have distinct particulars, but 
identifiable similarities.

On 07/18/2018 08:53 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, and all,
> 
>  
> 
> I am overwhelmed (of course) by the diversity and complexity of the answers.  
> I had expected at most a few answers, highly similar to one another, of the 
> form, “Nick you idiot….,” followed at most by a couple of sentences.  It 
> seems that I am missing some context that would make the answers seem both 
> more similar and straightforward. 
> 
>  
> 
> Allow me to illustrate my confusion with a story, bearing in mind that my 
> confusion has absolutely no value except in so far as it might provide an 
> occasion for Wizards of Your Dark Art to come to a consensus amongst 
> yourselves about how to explain this stuff to us (as Owen so unforgettably 
> puts it) /citizens/.  When I was teaching at Swarthmore in the Sixties there 
> was a Shop Guy who could design and build ANYTHING.  I asked him to build two 
> model “rats” to illustrate [what later became known as] Supervenience to bio 
> students.  The “rats” were just plywood cutouts of rats, exactly the same on 
> the surface with, two lights for eyes and three switches.  The job of the 
> student was to use the behavior of the rats (how the lights related to the 
> switches) to figure out the design of the two rats.  Only when they had 
> committed themselves to a “model” of the rats “insides” were they allowed to 
> look inside and see how they were actually put together.   They all concluded 
> that the rats
> were the same, but of course my rat-maker had used different components and 
> circuitry to arrive at the same behavior.  (I think one was straight logic 
> and the other involved stepping switches, but don’t hold me to that.  )
> 
> The rats were thus doubly modular; they were made of modules, but, more 
> important to me at the time, they were modules themselves for the purposes of 
> demonstrating “rat” behavior.
> 
>  
> 
> OK.  So the rats’ behavior supervened upon their circuitry.  In other words, 
> there’s more than one way to skin a … rat.   If I wanted to demonstrate “rat 
> behavior”, it made no difference to me which of his two rats I took off the 
> shelf.  This was intended to demonstrate to the student that brain models 
> lived in the behavior of organisms and that just because somebody said 
> something about neurons and synapses didn’t necessarily mean they knew 
> anything about how the brain actually accomplished behavior.  But that issue 
> is for another day.
> 
>  
> 
> Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to fail 
> and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine, pretty 
> much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can bolt a new 
> Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of course, I went 
> for the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked beautifully, but it 
> looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color was all wrong, but it 
> had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all the levers, and it did 
> the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes upon engine construction. 
> 
>  
> 
> Now this is how I was starting to think about “objects” in programming.  They 
> were, in effect, black boxes, with stress laid on the intersubstitutability 
> of different fulfillments of the box.  And like any modular system (DNA comes 
> to mind), modularity is a great spur to creativity, leaving programmers free 
> to work on better modules knowing that as long as the version of the “object“ 
> they design (which, say, can work in a greater variety of heat conditions or 
> uses less power, etc.) is the “same” box, then their work is a contribution 
> to the whole.  This is how I understood DOS utililties and Matlab tools.   I 
> guess, in short, I was thinking of objects as /functionally /defined.   This 
> how I created and used macros in Word.
> 
>  
> 
> Some of your responses seemed to confirm my intuition; others seemed to be 
> totally different.  But there seemed to be a consensus among you, leaving me 
> to believe that I still don’t understand the context in which the term, 
> “object”, is used that carves it out from the rest of the world for you 
> Wizards. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your intricate and patient replies.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Robert Holmes]

Hope this helps

https://xkcd.com/2021/

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> David, and all,
>
>
>
> I am overwhelmed (of course) by the diversity and complexity of the
> answers.  I had expected at most a few answers, highly similar to one
> another, of the form, “Nick you idiot….,” followed at most by a couple of
> sentences.  It seems that I am missing some context that would make the
> answers seem both more similar and straightforward.
>
>
>
> Allow me to illustrate my confusion with a story, bearing in mind that my
> confusion has absolutely no value except in so far as it might provide an
> occasion for Wizards of Your Dark Art to come to a consensus amongst
> yourselves about how to explain this stuff to us (as Owen so unforgettably
> puts it) *citizens*.  When I was teaching at Swarthmore in the Sixties
> there was a Shop Guy who could design and build ANYTHING.  I asked him to
> build two model “rats” to illustrate [what later became known as]
> Supervenience to bio students.  The “rats” were just plywood cutouts of
> rats, exactly the same on the surface with, two lights for eyes and three
> switches.  The job of the student was to use the behavior of the rats (how
> the lights related to the switches) to figure out the design of the two
> rats.  Only when they had committed themselves to a “model” of the rats
> “insides” were they allowed to look inside and see how they were actually
> put together.   They all concluded that the rats were the same, but of
> course my rat-maker had used different components and circuitry to arrive
> at the same behavior.  (I think one was straight logic and the other
> involved stepping switches, but don’t hold me to that.  )
>
> The rats were thus doubly modular; they were made of modules, but, more
> important to me at the time, they were modules themselves for the purposes
> of demonstrating “rat” behavior.
>
>
>
> OK.  So the rats’ behavior supervened upon their circuitry.  In other
> words, there’s more than one way to skin a … rat.   If I wanted to
> demonstrate “rat behavior”, it made no difference to me which of his two
> rats I took off the shelf.  This was intended to demonstrate to the student
> that brain models lived in the behavior of organisms and that just because
> somebody said something about neurons and synapses didn’t necessarily mean
> they knew anything about how the brain actually accomplished behavior.  But
> that issue is for another day.
>
>
>
> Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to
> fail and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine,
> pretty much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can
> bolt a new Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of
> course, I went for the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked
> beautifully, but it looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color
> was all wrong, but it had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all
> the levers, and it did the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes
> upon engine construction.
>
>
>
> Now this is how I was starting to think about “objects” in programming.
> They were, in effect, black boxes, with stress laid on the
> intersubstitutability of different fulfillments of the box.  And like any
> modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to
> creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that
> as long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in
> a greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the
> “same” box, then their work is a contribution to the whole.  This is how I
> understood DOS utililties and Matlab tools.   I guess, in short, I was
> thinking of objects as *functionally *defined.   This how I created and
> used macros in Word.
>
>
>
> Some of your responses seemed to confirm my intuition; others seemed to be
> totally different.  But there seemed to be a consensus among you, leaving
> me to believe that I still don’t understand the context in which the term,
> “object”, is used that carves it out from the rest of the world for you
> Wizards.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your intricate and patient replies.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:01 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

David, and all, 

 

I am overwhelmed (of course) by the diversity and complexity of the answers.  I 
had expected at most a few answers, highly similar to one another, of the form, 
“Nick you idiot….,” followed at most by a couple of sentences.  It seems that I 
am missing some context that would make the answers seem both more similar and 
straightforward.  

 

Allow me to illustrate my confusion with a story, bearing in mind that my 
confusion has absolutely no value except in so far as it might provide an 
occasion for Wizards of Your Dark Art to come to a consensus amongst yourselves 
about how to explain this stuff to us (as Owen so unforgettably puts it) 
citizens.  When I was teaching at Swarthmore in the Sixties there was a Shop 
Guy who could design and build ANYTHING.  I asked him to build two model “rats” 
to illustrate [what later became known as] Supervenience to bio students.  The 
“rats” were just plywood cutouts of rats, exactly the same on the surface with, 
two lights for eyes and three switches.  The job of the student was to use the 
behavior of the rats (how the lights related to the switches) to figure out the 
design of the two rats.  Only when they had committed themselves to a “model” 
of the rats “insides” were they allowed to look inside and see how they were 
actually put together.   They all concluded that the rats were the same, but of 
course my rat-maker had used different components and circuitry to arrive at 
the same behavior.  (I think one was straight logic and the other involved 
stepping switches, but don’t hold me to that.  )

The rats were thus doubly modular; they were made of modules, but, more 
important to me at the time, they were modules themselves for the purposes of 
demonstrating “rat” behavior.

 

OK.  So the rats’ behavior supervened upon their circuitry.  In other words, 
there’s more than one way to skin a … rat.   If I wanted to demonstrate “rat 
behavior”, it made no difference to me which of his two rats I took off the 
shelf.  This was intended to demonstrate to the student that brain models lived 
in the behavior of organisms and that just because somebody said something 
about neurons and synapses didn’t necessarily mean they knew anything about how 
the brain actually accomplished behavior.  But that issue is for another day.

 

Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to fail 
and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine, pretty 
much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can bolt a new 
Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of course, I went for 
the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked beautifully, but it 
looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color was all wrong, but it 
had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all the levers, and it did 
the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes upon engine construction.  

 

Now this is how I was starting to think about “objects” in programming.  They 
were, in effect, black boxes, with stress laid on the intersubstitutability of 
different fulfillments of the box.  And like any modular system (DNA comes to 
mind), modularity is a great spur to creativity, leaving programmers free to 
work on better modules knowing that as long as the version of the “object“ they 
design (which, say, can work in a greater variety of heat conditions or uses 
less power, etc.) is the “same” box, then their work is a contribution to the 
whole.  This is how I understood DOS utililties and Matlab tools.   I guess, in 
short, I was thinking of objects as functionally defined.   This how I created 
and used macros in Word. 

 

Some of your responses seemed to confirm my intuition; others seemed to be 
totally different.  But there seemed to be a consensus among you, leaving me to 
believe that I still don’t understand the context in which the term, “object”, 
is used that carves it out from the rest of the world for you Wizards.  

 

Thanks for your intricate and patient replies. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:01 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

 

Hi Nick,

 

An object is a specific way to define and design a module and a module is a 
tool for segmenting, modularizing, the source code (what the programmer 
actually writes, not what the machine executes) for a program. To parse this 
assertion - and then to explain how and why object modularization is different 
- a quick aside to discuss a program is in order.

 

I use 'program' to mean the source code - the lines of COBOL, java, C++, or 
Smalltalk that the programmer writes.

 

I am sure you hav

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

I think many non-trivial computational codes assume significant knowledge of 
the subject matter in order to use the tools.
I’ve recently been using an optimization code that has 2445 tunable parameters, 
and only a small percentage of them have any obvious, intuitive meaning.   
Should it just do the Right Thing?   Maybe, if that was agreed upon, or if 
there was agreement by experts on how to do it.   The true value of a tool is 
sometimes less that it does one thing well, but rather that it represents 
well-known nodes and edges in a network of concepts, and that it helps one to 
navigate (once one realizes that exploration is necessary).

The drive toward compartmentalization in computer science is kind of at odds at 
how the other sciences operate.   In the other sciences, a specialist aims to 
know everything she can about her specialty.   But we take pride in creating 
systems where interface and implementation are not coupled, and we can say that 
you shouldn’t need or want to know how an interface is implemented.
Sometimes I think that makes us (appear?) incurious.My view is that the 
world is big and being a specialist is kind of a depressing thought anyway.

Marcus
--
“The psychological profiling [of a programmer] is mostly the ability to shift 
levels of abstraction, from low level to high level. To see something in the 
small and to see something in the large.“  - Donald Knuth

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 8:07 PM
To: Friam 
Subject: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.

I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an object 
in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or any 
mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and it 
gives you what it’s supposed to, and you don’t give a damn how it works.

Please don’t yell at me.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[glen]

Every one of the responses so far has said this. But it might help to say it 
differently, anyway. Objects, unlike utilities or functions and other "soft 
ware", have *particularity*. Each object is distinct from all other objects, 
regardless of how similar they may be.

It may be useful to analogize to music media. A vinyl LP is a particular 
instance of the music, as is a CD. The crisis in the music industry was largely 
about the ease with which we could construct, copy, instantiate, a new 
particulate that was very similar to the parent particulate.

Viewed in terms of particularity, objecthood is largely about lineage and the 
(lack of) historical accumulation of idiosyncracies.

On July 17, 2018 7:06:57 PM PDT, Nick Thompson  
wrote:
>Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 
>
>I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
>object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.
> Or
>any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs,
>and
>it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it
>works. 
>
>Please don't yell at me.
>
>Nick 

-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[David Eric Smith]

Nick, 

Many years ago I asked this question of an IT person in Austin (little 
different, about distributed objects), and he pointed me at this book, which I 
dutifully got and read:

https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Distributed-Objects-Survival-Guide/dp/0471129933
 


This must be, what, 1995?

It’s also kind of a juvenile style, and doesn’t go very far, but somebody made 
the effort to write down a systematic narrative.

All best,

Eric


> On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Nick Thompson  
> wrote:
> 
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 
>  
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an object 
> in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or any 
> mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and it 
> gives you what it’s supposed to, and you don’t give a damn how it works. 
>  
> Please don’t yell at me.
>  
> Nick 
>  
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> 
>  
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
> 
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>  by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Tom Johnson]

Beautifully stated, Dave. Thanks.
TJ

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 12:00 AM Prof David West  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> An object is a specific way to define and design a module and a module is
> a tool for segmenting, modularizing, the source code (what the programmer
> actually writes, not what the machine executes) for a program. To parse
> this assertion - and then to explain how and why object modularization is
> different - a quick aside to discuss a program is in order.
>
> I use 'program' to mean the source code - the lines of COBOL, java, C++,
> or Smalltalk that the programmer writes.
>
> I am sure you have seen BASIC programs. The source code consists of a
> list, each entry on that list having a sequence number and a BASIC
> statement. The computer will execute that program one line at a time in
> sequence: the statement on line 1 then line 2 ... Some of the statements,
> say the one on line 20 wont tell the computer to do something, instead they
> tell the computer to GOTO some other line number and resume executing
> instructions. Several different types of control structures are available.
> It takes little imagination to realize the larger the program the greater
> the difficulty in understanding what the computer might be doing at any
> specific time - especially if you also, simultaneously, need to track the
> values of numerous variables to see which branches are active.
>
> Hence the desire for modularization - packaging blocks of code lines into
> identifiable units - to simplify the process of reading a program and the
> mental modeling of what the program would be doing at any phase of
> execution.
>
> Now add Dikstra's famous definition, "a program is algorithms plus data
> structures."
>
> The first criteria for defining a module involved grouping lines of code
> that were related by prodecure, (essentially all lines participating in the
> same algorithm) - hence procedural programming with four kinds of modules:
> control, afferent, transform, and efferent.
>
> For various reasons, procedural modularization was unsatisfactory and,
> noticing that data structures were more stable over longer periods of time,
> data oriented modularization became the norm. You defined an entity as a
> data structure with members called attributes and aggregated all the
> procedures that operated on that specific data into a module.
>
> A DOS utility is probably written in C or Assembler, neither of which
> afford much opportunity for modularization, and is small enough that it
> does not need to be broken up.
>
> A tool in Matlab is likely a large program and if you could see the source
> code you would see modularization, probably more procedural in nature than
> data oriented.
>
> Note that both approaches to defining modules are focused on the program
> itself and how it can be broken up and the pieces related to each other.
> The same thing is true of "functional programming," i. e. the focus of
> design is inward towards the computer.
>
> Then came 'objects'.
>
> First critical difference: an object is not a way to modularize the
> program, it is a means for modularizing the World, the problem space.
>
> Second critical difference: one object is differentiated from another
> solely on the basis of behavior - what it does, what contribution it makes
> to the overall system, what services it provides to other objects.
>
> These two characteristics of objects are why Harman borrows the term for
> his Object-Oriented Ontology.
>
> The term Object-oriented programming was coined by Alan Kay and the
> metaphor he used to communicate the idea behind the term was was a
> biological cell consisting of an encapsulation boundary, inside of which
> was all the complexity that allowed the cell to do what it did, and outside
> of which was a protocol that allowed other cells to communicate with and
> request services from the cell.
>
> Unfortunately, very, very, few in the programming community "got the memo"
> and understood what an object was supposed to be, or how it could be
> implemented in a programming language. So, it is extremely rare to find any
> code, even in Smalltalk, but definitely in Java or C++ that even remotely
> resembles the object idea. Alan Kay maintains, to this day, that the object
> revolution has yet to happen.
>
> BTW all modules, and all executing programs for that matter, are intended
> to be "black boxes" - you have no idea, and do not care, what is inside of
> the box, only what outputs the box will provide you in exchange for what
> inputs.
>
> Long winded, and I hope not remedial, answer.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
>
>
>
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or
> any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and
> it gives you what it’s supposed to, and you 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Prof David West]

Alan Kay is the coiner of the term Object-oriented Programming and the
biological cell metaphor. In later years he thought that programmers
might have had a better chance of writing object code if there was a
clearer distinction between OO Design implemented with Message-
oriented programming. This might have prevented the horrible mistake
of equating an object (ala Kay) with an "abstract data type" (ala
Stroustrup and C++).


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 10:09 PM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez wrote:
> I do not know if Alan Kay created the term object in the context of
> programming  but he was a pioneer of OOP when created Smalltalk. These
> are few paragraphs where Kay is cited in relation to the term object
> and concept is explained.> 
> https://www.yegor256.com/2017/12/12/alan-kay-was-wrong.html
> 
> Felicidades para todos.   
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Marcus Daniels
>  wrote:>> One can also have procedures bound to types 
> where the procedures
>> are pure.>>  OOP does not imply methods that have privileged access to state,
>>  although this is common with languages like C++ and Java.>>  In contrast, a 
>> method (or type bound procedure) can have privileged
>>  access to the meaning of state when state is provided (as an
>>  argument).>>  Haskell basically requires this approach and Fortran 2008
>>  facilitates it.>> 
>> 
>> On 7/17/18, 9:05 PM, "Friam on behalf of Russell Standish" > boun...@redfish.com on behalf of li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:>> 
>>  Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished
>>  from a>>  function by having state. Call an object's method, and the
>>  method's>>  scope is populated by the object's data members, which 
>> of
>>  course,>>  differ from object to object.
>> 
>>  By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or
>>  its>>  state is global (same for every function invocation).
>> 
>>  Cheers
>> 
>>  On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>  > Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 
>>  > 
>>  >  
>>  > 
>>  > I have always been puzzled by the question of how one
>>  > distinguishes an>>  > object in object programming from a utility 
>> in DOS or a tool
>>  > in Matlab.  Or>>  > any mathematical function, for that matter.  
>> You give it what
>>  > it needs, and>>  > it gives you what it's supposed to, and you 
>> don't give a damn
>>  > how it works.>>  > 
>>  >  
>>  > 
>>  > Please don't yell at me.
>>  > 
>>  >  
>>  > 
>>  > Nick 
>>  > 
>>  >  
>>  > 
>>  > Nicholas S. Thompson
>>  > 
>>  > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>  > 
>>  > Clark University
>>  > 
>>  > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>  > 
>>  >  
>>  > 
>> 
>>  > 
>>  > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  > to unsubscribe
>>  > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  > 
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr.
>>  > Strangelove>> 
>> 
>>  -- 
>> 
>>  
>>  >>  Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 
>> 253119
>>  (mobile)>>  Principal, High Performance Coders
>>  Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>>  Economics, Kingston University
>>  http://www.hpcoders.com.au>>  
>> 
>>  >> 
>>  
>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  to unsubscribe
>>  http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Prof David West]

Hi Nick,

An object is a specific way to define and design a module and a module
is a tool for segmenting, modularizing, the source code (what the
programmer actually writes, not what the machine executes) for a
program. To parse this assertion - and then to explain how and why
object modularization is different - a quick aside to discuss a program
is in order.
I use 'program' to mean the source code - the lines of COBOL, java, C++,
or Smalltalk that the programmer writes.
I am sure you have seen BASIC programs. The source code consists of a
list, each entry on that list having a sequence number and a BASIC
statement. The computer will execute that program one line at a time in
sequence: the statement on line 1 then line 2 ... Some of the
statements, say the one on line 20 wont tell the computer to do
something, instead they tell the computer to GOTO some other line number
and resume executing instructions. Several different types of control
structures are available. It takes little imagination to realize the
larger the program the greater the difficulty in understanding what the
computer might be doing at any specific time - especially if you also,
simultaneously, need to track the values of numerous variables to see
which branches are active.
Hence the desire for modularization - packaging blocks of code lines
into identifiable units - to simplify the process of reading a program
and the mental modeling of what the program would be doing at any phase
of execution.
Now add Dikstra's famous definition, "a program is algorithms plus data
structures."
The first criteria for defining a module involved grouping lines of code
that were related by prodecure, (essentially all lines participating in
the same algorithm) - hence procedural programming with four kinds of
modules: control, afferent, transform, and efferent.
For various reasons, procedural modularization was unsatisfactory and,
noticing that data structures were more stable over longer periods of
time, data oriented modularization became the norm. You defined an
entity as a data structure with members called attributes and aggregated
all the procedures that operated on that specific data into a module.
A DOS utility is probably written in C or Assembler, neither of which
afford much opportunity for modularization, and is small enough that it
does not need to be broken up.
A tool in Matlab is likely a large program and if you could see the
source code you would see modularization, probably more procedural in
nature than data oriented.
Note that both approaches to defining modules are focused on the program
itself and how it can be broken up and the pieces related to each other.
The same thing is true of "functional programming," i. e. the focus of
design is inward towards the computer.
Then came 'objects'.

First critical difference: an object is not a way to modularize the
program, it is a means for modularizing the World, the problem space.
Second critical difference: one object is differentiated from another
solely on the basis of behavior - what it does, what contribution it
makes to the overall system, what services it provides to other objects.
These two characteristics of objects are why Harman borrows the term for
his Object-Oriented Ontology.
The term Object-oriented programming was coined by Alan Kay and the
metaphor he used to communicate the idea behind the term was was a
biological cell consisting of an encapsulation boundary, inside of which
was all the complexity that allowed the cell to do what it did, and
outside of which was a protocol that allowed other cells to communicate
with and request services from the cell.
Unfortunately, very, very, few in the programming community "got the
memo" and understood what an object was supposed to be, or how it could
be implemented in a programming language. So, it is extremely rare to
find any code, even in Smalltalk, but definitely in Java or C++ that
even remotely resembles the object idea. Alan Kay maintains, to this
day, that the object revolution has yet to happen.
BTW all modules, and all executing programs for that matter, are
intended to be "black boxes" - you have no idea, and do not care, what
is inside of the box, only what outputs the box will provide you in
exchange for what inputs.
Long winded, and I hope not remedial, answer.

davew



On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.


>  


> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in
> Matlab.  Or any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it
> what it needs, and it gives you what it’s supposed to, and you don’t
> give a damn how it works.>  


> Please don’t yell at me.


>  


> Nick


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

Objects are more versatile than modules:  An object can be passed around, and 
it can provide scoping and access control like most modules system do.Even 
static symbol access can be done with objects provided there is an origin 
object that provides those services like QueryInterface (think the `env’ 
optional argument to main in C).   The trick is to do it in such a way that a 
compiler can analyze what is going on, e.g. to enable devirtualization.   
That’s not easy, so I’d argue that’s why there is a duality between modules and 
objects – it is a performance issue.   In practice, module systems are mainly 
concerned with facilitating birth of objects.  Once born, there’s little need 
for them because everything else can be done with messaging and functional 
composition.
From: Friam  on behalf of Alfredo Covaleda Vélez 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 10:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

And this is probably  even better for your discussion

http://wiki.c2.com/?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez 
mailto:alfr...@covaleda.co>> wrote:
I do not know if Alan Kay created the term object in the context of programming 
 but he was a pioneer of OOP when created Smalltalk. These are few paragraphs 
where Kay is cited in relation to the term object and concept is explained.

https://www.yegor256.com/2017/12/12/alan-kay-was-wrong.html

Felicidades para todos.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
One can also have procedures bound to types where the procedures are pure.
OOP does not imply methods that have privileged access to state, although this 
is common with languages like C++ and Java.
In contrast, a method (or type bound procedure) can have privileged access to 
the meaning of state when state is provided (as an argument).
Haskell basically requires this approach and Fortran 2008 facilitates it.

On 7/17/18, 9:05 PM, "Friam on behalf of Russell Standish" 
mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of 
li...@hpcoders.com.au<mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:

Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
differ from object to object.

By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
state is global (same for every function invocation).

Cheers

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
>
>
>
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  
Or
> any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, 
and
> it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it 
works.
>
>
>
> Please don't yell at me.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>

> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
hpco...@hpcoders.com.au<mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au>
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Co

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

And this is probably  even better for your discussion

http://wiki.c2.com/?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez <
alfr...@covaleda.co> wrote:

> I do not know if Alan Kay created the term object in the context of
> programming  but he was a pioneer of OOP when created Smalltalk. These are
> few paragraphs where Kay is cited in relation to the term object and
> concept is explained.
>
> https://www.yegor256.com/2017/12/12/alan-kay-was-wrong.html
>
> Felicidades para todos.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
>> One can also have procedures bound to types where the procedures are
>> pure.
>> OOP does not imply methods that have privileged access to state, although
>> this is common with languages like C++ and Java.
>> In contrast, a method (or type bound procedure) can have privileged
>> access to the meaning of state when state is provided (as an argument).
>> Haskell basically requires this approach and Fortran 2008 facilitates it.
>>
>> On 7/17/18, 9:05 PM, "Friam on behalf of Russell Standish" <
>> friam-boun...@redfish.com on behalf of li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
>> function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
>> scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
>> differ from object to object.
>>
>> By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
>> state is global (same for every function invocation).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes
>> an
>> > object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in
>> Matlab.  Or
>> > any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it
>> needs, and
>> > it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how
>> it works.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please don't yell at me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nicholas S. Thompson
>> >
>> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> >
>> > Clark University
>> >
>> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > 
>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/lis
>> tinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 
>> 
>> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>> 
>> 
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

I do not know if Alan Kay created the term object in the context of
programming  but he was a pioneer of OOP when created Smalltalk. These are
few paragraphs where Kay is cited in relation to the term object and
concept is explained.

https://www.yegor256.com/2017/12/12/alan-kay-was-wrong.html

Felicidades para todos.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> One can also have procedures bound to types where the procedures are
> pure.
> OOP does not imply methods that have privileged access to state, although
> this is common with languages like C++ and Java.
> In contrast, a method (or type bound procedure) can have privileged access
> to the meaning of state when state is provided (as an argument).
> Haskell basically requires this approach and Fortran 2008 facilitates it.
>
> On 7/17/18, 9:05 PM, "Friam on behalf of Russell Standish" <
> friam-boun...@redfish.com on behalf of li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
>
> Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
> function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
> scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
> differ from object to object.
>
> By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
> state is global (same for every function invocation).
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes
> an
> > object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in
> Matlab.  Or
> > any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it
> needs, and
> > it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it
> works.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please don't yell at me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> >
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >
> > Clark University
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >
> >
> >
>
> > 
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> --
>
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

One can also have procedures bound to types where the procedures are pure.  
OOP does not imply methods that have privileged access to state, although this 
is common with languages like C++ and Java.
In contrast, a method (or type bound procedure) can have privileged access to 
the meaning of state when state is provided (as an argument).
Haskell basically requires this approach and Fortran 2008 facilitates it.

On 7/17/18, 9:05 PM, "Friam on behalf of Russell Standish" 
 wrote:

Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
differ from object to object.

By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
state is global (same for every function invocation).

Cheers

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 
> 
>  
> 
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  
Or
> any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, 
and
> it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it 
works. 
> 
>  
> 
> Please don't yell at me.
> 
>  
> 
> Nick 
> 
>  
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> 
> Clark University
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
>  
> 

> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Gillian Densmore]

lol and here I was trying to be simple and not get into states wich is a
cluster IMO. but yeah that is a good point the computer needs to know how
and wen to bake cookies and set the timer (states)

Now look you've just made him more confused! :P

Just to make this reeely go more off the rails:
Seriusly IF we want stuff to run in the web is having a state still needed
I thought that was one of the whole pissing contest between Mozzila's X-Tag
(states are baked in somehow) or WebCompenents (googles mess that has them
(sort of)
As I undestand it  X-Tag (for example) somehow real time asks if it's
possible to do something before assuming it can.

Or is that just a limit of computer languages?


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
> function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
> scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
> differ from object to object.
>
> By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
> state is global (same for every function invocation).
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> > object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.
> Or
> > any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs,
> and
> > it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it
> works.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please don't yell at me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> >
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >
> > Clark University
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >
> >
> >
>
> > 
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> --
>
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Gillian Densmore]

@Nick basically OOP may (or may not be) a good way to descibe and yes that
often leeds to flame wars.  Essentially many years ago it was considered
hard (and a bad idea at the time) to make a recipe without descringing to
the computer what the different things were. Adding things to a computer
language to describe those things basically meant (sort of) like
this:Computer a Cup is something 12inches  has a round piece solide and
red. The computer now knows what  a cup is when asked: Can you poor tea
into this cup(not without spilling it now asks)

I simply do not know why the used the term Object Orientated.

You are basically speaking computer the computer only knows  what you
describe as a real example of computer speak
def Gil= Smar.tas dowhile [mood == good]

That (in python assuming I didn't mess up spacing would say: Hey there make
a thing galled Gil (me) that when while he is in good humor sometimes is a
smart ass..
Someone else might speak to a computer in another language just like I
speak some Klingon and a little (almost none ) German, others speak French
mandarin etc.
type coffe;
Strct Coffee [hot, black list]
That's (some GoLangJS speak to say: So computer my really cool
Ractijono(Coffee) shop needs to have a cofee list! and here is what makes
coffeness Coffe!

it gets weirder with HtmL5 and Xtags:

xtag.create('x-clock', class extends XTagElement {
  connectedCallback () {
this.start();
  }


^ that says ok so it'd be a really good idea for my page to have a clock! a
clock sits in the background and tells time, start it when the page loads
(theirs way more to it )




Does that make things about a clear as YodaSpeak?


And nick for the most part as someone said: Question no bad their
areasnwers smart only one might get (hehehehehe in a bad yoda voice)

In all serius that reely is a good questions. I haven't used MatLab so I
have no idea what or how it does

FWIW people are moving from deciding to first tell a compute rwhat
everthing is,  to moving to here's a instruction manual, here's some parts
here's how to build
(X-Tags, Cookie cutters, or templates depending on who's doing it and if
it's speaking WebPolymer (twitch) or X-Tags)



On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.
>
>
>
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or
> any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and
> it gives you what it’s supposed to, and you don’t give a damn how it works.
>
>
>
> Please don’t yell at me.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Russell Standish]

Not sure about "utility"/"tool", but an object is distinguished from a
function by having state. Call an object's method, and the method's
scope is populated by the object's data members, which of course,
differ from object to object.

By contrast a function either has no state (pure function), or its
state is global (same for every function invocation).

Cheers

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:06:57PM -0400, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 
> 
>  
> 
> I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
> object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or
> any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and
> it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it works. 
> 
>  
> 
> Please don't yell at me.
> 
>  
> 
> Nick 
> 
>  
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> 
> Clark University
> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
>  
> 

> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick,

An important aspect of object-oriented programming (OOP) is the ability to pass 
around capabilities and not just lifeless state.   With object-oriented 
programming, the things objects can do as just another kind of stuff.

Without this property, it is more difficult to consider interactions between 
objects without subsuming the objects into a bigger class of objects.
For example, it is unreasonable to consider FRIAM as a parent or owner of the 
members of this list, yet the procedural programming paradigm strongly 
encourages that kind of thinking and that kind of organization.

There are other aspects of OOP that people may claim are important, such as 
type inheritance or even multiple inheritance.   I think these are 
non-essential.  Messaging (or methods) and localized-encapsulation are 
essential.  Some object-oriented languages like Smalltalk or JavaScript have 
almost no type system at all.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 8:07 PM
To: Friam 
Subject: [FRIAM] What is an object?

Dave, and anybody else who wants to play.

I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an object 
in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or any 
mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and it 
gives you what it’s supposed to, and you don’t give a damn how it works.

Please don’t yell at me.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] What is an object?

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, and anybody else who wants to play. 

 

I have always been puzzled by the question of how one distinguishes an
object in object programming from a utility in DOS or a tool in Matlab.  Or
any mathematical function, for that matter.  You give it what it needs, and
it gives you what it's supposed to, and you don't give a damn how it works. 

 

Please don't yell at me.

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove