help wanted: playground construction
RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:19:52 -0700
Let me express my profound disgust with this group. Not for any
individual's actions, but the inability for some real constructive
conversation to develop. I've baited people with some decent discussion
lead-ins, and all we do is argue that "what you're talking about is
different from the way I think it should work". I know that I'm guilty
of this, too, perhaps to the greatest extent of us. I hoped when I
joined that the evidence of slow progress on the web site was only a
We/you must start something new. I don't care what form this new
action takes, whether it be an agreement that everybody is talking about
the same thing, or changing the project's charter. Let's stop taking
our own words so seriously, and agree that whatever we're working on
doesn't deserve a name when we can't even describe what it is. I don't
see any way around this, either. This thing is indescribable as far as
I am concerned to the human-language limited person, much as a blind
person cannot describe the colours of the rainbow. Human languages as
they have existed, can't be the vehicle for this system.
In other words,
STOP RELYING ON WORDS!!
Terms are meaningless to this system. "AI", for instance, in my mind
is something you already understand in your own. No facts need to be
introduced to communicate the idea. You already understand the concept,
you just merely assemble the idea from how people describe their
thoughts on something. In the same way, Tunes is known by everyone
here. "How Tunes will be constructed" is a matter of point-of-view.
I'd hate to see this project fail for lack of an agreed terminology.
That agreed terminology is the sort of thing which calcifies theories
into dogma. That is not Tunes.
I apologize. I must appear quite rude. However, I'm running out of
options on how to start a conversation which gets some real work done.
Let's agree, for instance, on modifying the Self system (the abstract
view of it, as opposed to the implementation) of objects to produce the
system of objects that we're looking for, like creating first-class
representations of "how hardware works", for instance, as well as
representations of the hardware in the "more abstract" areas.
These terms are meaningless, though: what makes on object intrinsically
"more abstract" than another? What excludes some object from our system
(is low-level hardware description "not worthy" of a Tunes object)? And
since we intend to encode human thought into a software system, why do
we object to "artificial intelligence" references, which are the same?
My "object playground" might become the "unified typesystem" or the
"object system" we intend to use in Tunes, for all anybody knows. Let's
not let words stand in the way of this line of thought!