home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:03:09 GMT
- Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
- Message-ID: <KERS.92Sep3100309@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
- Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- References: <a6bb2744@infoage.com> <45jnpm_.objsys@netcom.com> <KERS.92Sep2090951@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <4zknf9h.objsys@netcom.com>
- Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
- Lines: 76
- In-Reply-To: objsys@netcom.com's message of 2 Sep 92 19:37:54 GMT
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com
-
- In article ... objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
-
- [Re my reference to ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things'']
-
- I've read the book too. It is discussing what I call mental worlds and not
- real worlds so your argument is not applicable. Further discussion on the
- distinction (and my terminology, if you'll be so kind) will be Ok but please
- don't belabor the obvious.
-
- Part of the book *explicitly* addresses the issue of whether the model of the
- world it calls ``objectivist'' (that is, that there are objects ``out there''
- with real ``properties'', and some of the consequences of this model, as
- traditionally presented) is appropriate, and says ``no, it is not''. This is,
- if you recall, where we came in.
-
- If you wish to continue asserting that objects are ``real'', properties are
- ``real'' (in the sense that they belong to the world, and not to our
- descriptions), and that WFaDT is not applicable, then I suggest that you
- demonstrate either that the books arguments are flawed, or that you do not in
- fact belong to the objectivist tradition.
-
- Doing so will make your position clearer to those of us who are, as you have so
- precisely put it, ``confused''.
-
-
- > .................................................... This means the
- > object-oriented constructs are simply used to simulate and model the
- > real-world. For example, the "world" will enforce an equal and opposite
- > reaction whenever an object undergoes some force in the world model.
- >
- >Isn't this use of a ``world'' a violation of the object-oriented model you
- >propose?
-
- Absolutely not. It is a perfect use of object-oriented technology as I've
- already given you many examples and explanations of.
-
- If that's your idea of perfection in an object model -- resolve difficulties by
- having an additional object which handles all the things that local objects
- can't handle -- then you and I have remarkably different notions of perfection,
- object models, and what constitues a ``natural model'' of the world -- again,
- if you recall, this being where we came in.
-
- Please stop trying to discuss these subjects, they are an interest of mine
- and I'm beginning to think that you discuss these subjects with no
- background or tenability and you should leave these specific subjects to
- people who do.
-
- Let me be blunt. You have given me no evidence that you have any more
- background or tenability on this issue than I do. You have no evidence that
- this subject is not an interest of mine -- I would have thought the contrary,
- in fact, since I have posted more than 1500 lines on this topic. I am still
- learning the subject; since it has taken many generations of philosophers their
- entire lifetimes to get us where we are today, and I have many other interests
- to handle (such as eating), I feel no shame that I don't know all the answers.
- To post arguments to a public forum, such as this one, is to invite responses;
- you cannot expect people to stop criticising you just because you ask.
-
- I agree it can be irritating when those who clearly know nothing keep pestering
- one with inane, unsupported suggestions; when they clearly haven't read the
- relevant literature; when they keep changing their position without saying why;
- when they think that assertions are arguments.
-
- When that happens, one has two choices. One is to shut up and go to other
- routes to publicise ones ideas: conferences, (reffereed) papers, books. The
- other is to give names of standard works, suggest what problems are being
- attacked, make sure one's own position is clear, acknowledge weaknesses and
- explain how they are being addressed, and to treat the other disputants as
- rational human beings who have something to say.
-
- I'm not meaning to be overbearing, but we've covered all of this already.
-
- Coverage does not imply successful analysis, nor resolution.
- --
-
- Regards | "Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be
- Kers. | a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - John F. Woods
-