
Alan Kay – The center of “Why”? (2004) [pdf] - taheris
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2004002_center.pdf
======
westoncb
There's an idea repeated through the lecture that I find very interesting:

> _" A deeper realization came further on: there might be limitations in
> language itself and our ability to represent ideas and think about them that
> could preclude us from actually understanding the foundations of our
> situation._

> _Living organisms are shaped by evolution to survive, not necessarily to get
> a clear picture of the universe._

> _There’s a nice saying from the Talmud: We see things not as they are, but
> as we are. That is, whenever we’re looking out into the world, we’re always
> seeing ourselves, we’re not really seeing what’s out there._

For most of my life I'd assumed that human concepts were this limitless sort
of thing capable of making fundamental connections to what's going on in the
universe at some deep level. In more recent years I've come to consider them
as almost like another sense: they are symbolic patterns consistently formed
when we are exposed to certain stimuli (like our experience of smells
consistently reappearing when exposed to similar molecules). Our conceptual
faculty augments the pure pattern-correspondence of our more primitive senses
in that the patterns can be associated with other internal patterns, and in
that we can generate new patterns purely from existing patterns (using logical
and analogical processes), which at some future time may be usefully
associated with some never-encountered external stimulus. This is of course
extremely _useful_ —but we really must be falling into what should be an
obvious trap of anthropocentrism in ascribing to them much more than that.

As an example of where we're likely tripping up by considering concepts to be
somehow transcendent: there's a common unjustified stance that mathematics is
not only capable of _describing_ the universe, but that it's somehow behind
its operation. Even further than that, I often run into smart people with the
view that reality is somehow _made_ of mathematics. I wonder if that's what
Kay's getting at with this:

> _Art is “all the stuff that people make”, and this includes our beliefs
> (which we like to call “reality”)._

Almost in a similar manner to the way one might fail to recognize the
absurdity of a misplaced pink elephant in a dream, we seem structured to
unknowingly substitute our mental reference systems with the things they refer
to.

~~~
gnipgnip
> > "A deeper realization came further on: there might be limitations in
> language itself and our ability to represent ideas and think about them that
> could preclude us from actually understanding the foundations of our
> situation.

I see this play out every day. As a result of the continued linguistic
apartheid in my country, the languages are dead, and the people are stupid as
dirt (on average), to be blunt. However, this is mostly Karma, the result of
accumulations of centuries past, playing out as the complete decimation of
histories; naturally, the education/media system is a propaganda op, with tons
of shills at every corner. Those whom you'd wish to see break out of chains,
appear to find comfort in them alone. New ideas can't touch them nor move
them, because the "programming language" is so outdated, that such sentences
will be treated as garbage.

I believe there are deep reasons why India could only think of independence
through a class which was more British than Indian. India is but a grave for
the civilization it once sustained, and we are but mere flies who wish for a
phoenix.

Language does indeed governs our thoughts, and in that respect governs the
world we create - it's what makes us human, far more than anything else. Take
out the language, and what you get is a mere animal.

~~~
throwaway7645
This is a little vague to me. Could you please go into more detail?

------
wonko1
It's clear that he was lucky to have a school teacher who inspired him from an
early age and effected his world view significantly.

I guess he got lucky, but as a parent I worry about this. He points out that
most educational establishments don't encourage individual exploration, and
that was my experience too.

Makes me consider home schooling, but that seems like a less than ideal
solution too. Do we just have to rely on luck?

~~~
scalio
Parents are more important than schools, because things the parents fuck up in
their kids' education are nearly impossible for the school to reverse. The
reverse isn't true, though. The disenchantment with education a child
experiences through shitty curricula or teachers can fairly easily be
counteracted by the parents by engaging the kid. Which takes a lot of time and
love, which is probably why so few do it.

I'm not a fan of homeschooling because normal school is usually a great place
for kids to learn society. So much _stuff_ happens at a school that can never
be recreated by dragging your kids to clubs or events. All the fighting, the
teasing, the friction, but also the playing. I've had a couple truly horrible
teachers, but I've also had a couple truly great ones. The former taught me
how to deal with authoritarian assholes while the latter have advanced me
humanistically.

If you want to help your kids, stick'em in a stink normal school with stink
normal people, and fascinate them privately.

~~~
Turing_Machine
_I 'm not a fan of homeschooling because normal school is usually a great
place for kids to learn society._

It's a great place for them to learn a completely artificial society designed
by 19th century Prussian educators to train proles to become good factory
workers. Modern society? Or any real society? Not so much.

There is no natural society that consists solely of a group of peers all
within 12 months of age, under the control of an arbitrary authority figure,
where every activity is controlled by a bell. The only thing that's remotely
similar is military boot camp (that may be why this model appealed to the
Prussians so much). Even prison has more diversity of perspectives, ages, etc.

------
pakl
Does anyone know the source for his Einstein quote on page 9: "You should be
careful to distinguish what is true from what is real."?

~~~
abainbridge
I'm guessing that isn't a direct quote. It looks like the difference between
truth and reality was a bit of a theme for Einstein. For example, his "I don't
believe in Mathematics" quote sounds like it might be trying to say the same
thing.

Another, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

