Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:31:24 +0100
Hi Magnus and TLS,
See comments below -
Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> Hi Doug, sorry for not answering earlier. The sky opened
> and work fell over me.
>
> You wrote:
> > Substitute the term Static Pattern of Value (SPoV) for 'Object.'
>
> Now I'm puzzled, that was kind'a sort'a the purpose of the post.
>
> > When you do this, remember that MoQ says Value (both DQ and SQ) is
> > co-within/interpenetrating via the Interrelationships among SPoVs, a
> la
> > Dusenberry. (See the PS example below.)
>
> Yeah, that's one of the beauties of the analogue. Too bad only
> computer nerds can appreciate, or criticize it.
>
> > By comparison, SOM says the Value (it calls values, 'properties') or
> > properties are in the Objects, a la Franz Boas. It says
> > interrelationships are subjective and thus 'insubstantial.'
>
> But still, nobody during the french revolution wanted to alter the
> interrelationship between their head and neck.
>
> > (AND,) In MoQ the 'interlevel dependency' Interrelationships are
> > mediated by DQ and the five sets of Pirsig's Moral Codes.
> >
> > OK?
>
> Yes, the moral codes would be built in, no DQ though.
>
Magnus,
I found this presumption really interesting. Especially from your view
of and interest in artificial intelligence.
You appear to imply that the moral codes are formal. But in the MoQ the
moral codes are indeed Static Patterns of Value subject to the dynamic
force of evolution (to use Ken's, et al., terms).
Why not use, e.g., genetic algorithms to emulate DQ? As I referenced
near the end of 1997 in email here, there are folk doing adaptive,
self-reprogramming agents in silicon as we speak.
Also, why couldn't the SPoVs be heuristic? The hard part here is
emulating context, its persistence and its adaptation. Growable
associative memory plays a large role in the technical solution to this
problem.
I guess what I am saying is that your Object/SPoV-Oriented approach
needs a hybrid platform on which to achieve a more complete emulation of
MoQ.
Doug Renselle.
> > PS Example: A good example I use here is the old DOS command line
> > interrelationship to humans as compared to the Macintosh or modern
> > browser Graphical User Interface (GUI). There is incredibly more
> Value
> > in the latter than in the former.
>
> ...been reading Gelernter I presume.
Magnus,
I looked on the amazon.com site and found Gelernter. Wow! He is a true
futurist! I discovered that his ideas are at least six years ahead of a
few of my own. I ordered his book, 'Mirror Worlds.' Do you know if he
is the same Gelernter who was the unabomber's 14th victim?
Thanks for your reply above. I was not attempting triteness on the
issue of (software) Objects as SPoVs. I sense the presence of SOM
influencing our jargon and that (IMO) may confuse casual visitors.
Also, when I think of the O-O development paradigm illuminated by MoQ's
SPoV-O light the focus moves from encapsulating methods/resources in
Objects to aggregating context-sensitive (a la many truths) resource
behaviors in interrelationship value patterns. (Admittedly this is
easier to say than do, and bio-components' quantum interrelationships
facilitate this well in that realm. It is tougher to accomplish in
formal code on a formal von Neumann architecture machine. Now there is
an entrepreneurial opportunity for someone!)
MoQ shows us that is where the real leverage on Value is. Contemporary
OO technique (I am NOT up to speed on the latest techniques!) appears
still trapped in an intra-object resource aggregation camp. My guess is
this is primarily influence from some of DeMarco's and Yourdon's old
ideas on functional cohesion. Unsure you have read them, and from your
words I sense you are a student of Booch.
Imagine what our cells would look like if our life forms were designed
with cohesive intra-object resource aggregation. They are not,
however. All cells are virtually (method/resource-) identical, with
each carrying the entire specification for the final composite form.
The homeobox interrelationships among the cells tell each which tissue
to build dependent on context. That is NOT functional cohesion! It IS
re-use or design cohesion.
By comparison functional cohesion would demand unique cells for each of
the roughly 100k proteins which compose a modern human. To me, this is
the way we do it today. A better model is the one described in the
previous paragraph. BTW the 'better' model is demonstrably more MoQ and
less SOM. :)
Mtty Magnus,
Doug Renselle.
>
> Magnus
>
> --
> "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
> N. Peart - Rush
-- The complementary view of truth is many truths which are contextual, and by being contextual they leave room for the good to rule. It is not objectivism, which has no place for the good, and it is not relativism, which has no place for truth.By Hugo Fjelsted Alroe in his email to The Lila Squad on 11 March 1998, 17:44 titled, "LS Re: Rambling on intellect and life."
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST