The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
LogoForum. The original author of this message is
gene_sullivan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In LogoForum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gene Theil <genetheil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Dear Phil, Dale, Gene Juan,
> Phil, you talked about the problem of getting back
> to a 2D mode after running an example that put you
> into perspective mode. I had exactly the same
> difficulty the first time I tried to run a 3D
> procedure. It was pure nostalgia to see someone have
> the same problem. and the same experience of the
> struggle to find it's solution.
>
> However, you solved it differently than I did. You
> accessed a fundamental resource that is almost always
> present when a student learns, that is, a teacher, ie,
> someone who might know more about the subject than you
> do, and is willing to share that knowledge
`teacher'/functionary ... whereas anybody with `know how',
board certified, belonging to a `teachers union' or not,
under supervision of a school board or not, might have
served just as well. Or `help' files? Or a collection
of sample programs, some of which contain examples
of how the feature is used.
What if this `fundamental resource' approximates
a fundamentalist in one's particular locale?
What if the `fundamental resource' has a curriculum
devoid of Logo, computers, or even technology?
What if the would-be learner has selected Logo as
a DIY project of personal interest?
> I chose to do it differently. I went through the
> documentation thoroughly, nay, exhaustively, trying to
> find the answer to my question, as you did. After
> that, came a long period of increasing frustration, as
> I tried one thing after another, with no success. The
> only way to get back to the original state was to
> close Logo down and restart it. Of course, I did that
> without saving my work more than once, which made me
> crazy. At some point, working on a completely
> different set of procedures, I wanted to go out of
> "wrap" mode and into "window". Finally, light dawned:
> "window", "wrap", "fence, & "perspective", of course!
> The outcome was the same, but I think the process has
> some vital differences, none of which relate to the
> emotional states which we experienced, which seem to
> be the same for each of us, as they are most likely
> the same for anyone who struggles with a question
> which he or she knows to be a simple one, whose answer
> eludes him or her.
>
> The reasons why I chose to do it the way I did
> relate to my history and psychology and are not
> important except as illustrations of a general
> distinction which we need to make in the whole
> discussion of standards for Logo.
>
> That distinction is the answer to this question:
> "What is Logo for?". This teleological notion of a
> final cause comes into play here because of Logo's
> history as the result of a struggle by its creators to
> make something which could help people learn to do
> things for themselves, in ways which seem good to
> them. Truly, Logo is a philosophy of learning as well
> as a language. Because it is a language in several
> dialects (perhaps more dialects than any other
> artificial language), one can run into the same
> problems of translation as with natural languages and
> dialects, Juan.
> Sometimes, on this forum, you have asked
> questions about problems which you are trying to
> solve in Logo, which, quite probably, could be
> solved more easily in another language entirely.
Careful! If we all took this advice we might
better abandon Logo and move on to Scheme.
Or perhaps work back and forth between the two
using comparative linguistics to discover
a greater good?
{aside: I just found this link today while
searching for something else.
http://www.colorstudy.com/static/ianb/old/logo-scheme/
}
> But you stay with Logo, for many reasons, I'm
> sure, among which must be that you believe that
> this language, and not another, helps your
> students learn things about math, and
> problem-solving, which can help them think.
The sad fact is that many prefer imperative style.
Issuing commands to slavish turtle and translator alike.
And, yes, to help them think ... slavishly, waiting
for the teacher/functionary to issue a command rather
than to respond to any `Hands-On Imperative' upwelling
from within.
> And you do this because it is also a philosophy
> of learning. I happen to agree with you,
> strongly.
A Philosophy? A Love-of-wisdom?
But how would this attitude or bent measure up
epistemologically?
What does one end up `learning' and `knowing' if
one follows only where a bureaucrat called
or functioning-as `teacher' leads?
> Constructivist thinking seems to be about, among
> other things, the power relations between those who
> know something and want to impart that knowledge, and
> those who wish to learn it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_theory>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_teaching_methods#Constructiv
ist_Learning_Environments_.28CLEs.29>
Huh?
Though I can understand how it may `seem' this way to
you, it seems to me that you have missed the scoping
level significantly.
My take on constructivism is that it takes place
intRApersonally and even non-personally vis-a-vis
decidedly `artificial' neural nets. Though it `may'
be mentally modeled as a `social' or `interpersonal'
phenomenon, I would contend that the `society' to
which it would be constrained is the `Society of
Mind' which Marvin Minsky has postulated.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind>
Philosophically, I imagine no obstruction to a
solipsist autodidact to employing or manifesting
constructivist learning methods.
> This world is filled with people who wish to
> control, guard, or deny knowledge.
Yes. I'm one of them.
Me and my buddy Oedipus have had `issues' with `knowing'
and `knowledge'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_the_King
Though he may have a problems discerning/knowing
his mother from his lover and his loving father from
a mortal enemy, I've had difficulties discerning `knowing'
from `believing', acting-as-if-true, and such.
Rumor has it there is a whole field of philosophy
based on this myth of `knowing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
> One has only to read the paper to encounter evidence
> of this. I mention no examples, for each will have his
> or her own favorites, and because I have no wish to
> turn this into a forum on politics.
Tasteful self-restraint acknowledged and appreciated.
Let us carry on then ... impolitics as usual.
> I am, fundamentally, a philosopher.
Hmmmm ... not an E-prime employing philosopher,
apparently ;-)
Do you suppose that conception of god identifying
It's Self via "I am a that I am." was-qua-WAS
a philosopher too? Or a lover-of-wisdom
employing a bit of rhetoric for Affect?
I do so love some of those first programmers.
Some of their programs were so effective at
cajoling humans to act-as-if machines.
Now, ironically, modern -- or is it
`post' modern -- programmers attempt to get
machines to act-as-if human, albeit all
too often the type of humans which manifest
machine-like bureaucracies it seems.
> I believe it is vitally important to empower
> people by facilitating their acquisition of the
> tools that will enable them to learn to think
> critically and well.
Hmmmm ... an acquisitions-based model?
I hope I don't get trapped in this metaphor.
I'd hate to start acting-as-if `it' -- like with
`truth' in the X-files -- were `out there' and
there were no chance for spontaneous generation
via empirical experiments vis-a-vis both the
world within and the world without.
> I, personally, happen to believe that the best path
> to empowerment leads through the thicket of many
> dialects.
Superlative so noted.
And to me one of the better paths leads through
the thicket of Logo dialects and beyond out into
languages which have standards, standard libraries,
and such. Logo just `being' one dialect having
ramified off the root stock of lisp.
> I could make the argument that, in the world
> of ideas as in the world of living creatures,the
> combination of variation and selection is our best
> path to optimization.
Living creatures?
Asexual or sexual, as pertaining to the variations
found among capable of commingling half the DNA of
two unique individuals to (re)produce a third?
Our?
Best?
Optimized for what?
Would it `be'/seem so bad if Logo functioned as a general
purpose language ... not really optimized for a
specific task or purpose?
> If a few people who use a number of different
> dialects of the language happen to find it
> inconvenient that there is no exact translation
> for this or that construct, and that they have
> to manipulate their programs a little to get
> them to work, I think it is a small price to pay
> for the strength and beauty that come from
> variation.
Good. So if 2, 3, or n refrain from using Logo for
the lack of standards and standard libraries usable
across all standards-compliant implementations then
you and other tolerant souls will keep Logo `thriving'
to whatever extent it has been.
Did you ever wonder how many people left the Logo
community for Scheme and haven't come back?
If one wants a lisp/scheme engine underneath and
turtle graphics remind me why one wouldn't use
Galapagos Scheme, or use any implementation of
scheme with a turtle graphics package?
The syntactic sugar of Logo?
Is this it?
The syntactic sugar which varies from implementation
to implementation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_sugar
> The evolution of Logo is a (somewhat) living
> process, and like other such, is quirky and
> unpredictable.
Sure.
A genetic algorithm in process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
> It can lead into barren cul-de-sacs and through inefficient
> by-ways.
> It is the dream of reason to make a thing so
> perfect it will never need to be changed again.
The `cathedral' paradigm, as contrasted with the `bazaar'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
As if perfection were not a moving target?
As if delusions of perfection were not subject to change?
> Alas, that outcome can happen only for a work of art.
No. I've heard artists claim that works of art are
never complete ... just abandoned.
George Lucas has subscribed to this, for one.
> Things which are in daily use, and for multiple
> purposes, change as their users change and as
> the uses to which they are put change.
Certainly.
> Perhaps we will will see major types evolve,
> such as one which optimizes use for
> list-processing and one for the graphics side,
> but I doubt it.
Or evolve to cater/pander to fashions in programming.
Now one can have both OOP and List processing features
in something still beheld as `Logo'.
> This has become a bit of a rant, and for that, I
> apologize. I don't apologize for my opinions.
If rants -- like beauty -- `are' in the mind of a/the
beholder ... maybe we will assess this individually.
All the best,
Gene S.
__._,_.___
LogoForum messages are archived at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
|
