Hi Julian,
there's a difference between 'natural' and algorithmic thinking you
haven't considered so far: feedback
When you play a guitar, you get direct physical and instantaneous
feedback from your fingers, which are also your input organ.
On the other hand, programming can only give you non-instantaneous
feedback (whatever small the delay might be), which doesn't involve your
input organ (fingers), but rather other senses (visual, acoustic).
This has certainly nothing to do with culture.
Finally, it is widely accepted in cognitive sciences that often one does
already act before the 'act of action' gets in your consciousness.
This might be quite relevant for playing e.g. a guitar, whereas with
programming, one definitely needs to be conscious about what you are
writing (syntax restrictions etc.)
So, there's definitely not only different types of abstraction, but also
quite different levels of abstraction, computer programming being at one
of the highest levels.
Julian Rohrhuber wrote::
>
> Hey Thor,
>
> interesting topic.
>
> Well in a way, what is really explicit in a guitar is the fact that
> the tone that I hear is a result of my finger position and pressure
> (on a grid) and certain movement patterns that I have learned, or
> found to be interesting. I think the finger-thought has its
> explication in the guitar, just as the programming-thought has its
> explication in the code. What is subtle in a program might be quite
> implicit as well - often it just very well-tuned or elegant.
>
>
> I do agree that I can interact really differently with a guitar than
> in text. But I think this has more to do with culture than with
> nature. The difference in different types of abstractions make them
> perceptible. There is no original, "unabstracted", or at least I don't
> know where it should be.
>
>
>
>
> At 15:43 Uhr +0100 04.09.2006, thor wrote:
>>
>> Hey Julian
>>
>> I found this interesting:
>>
>> Of course I don't agree with his notion of of "natural" and his
>> antimathematical arguments. Thinking "naturally" is mediated already
>> by cultural algorithms (language, images, abstractions etc.).
>> Programming languages are a way to make this thinking explicit (and
>> to be able to change it), however "unnatural" it might seem.
>>
>>
>> I agree with what you are saying regarding programming being a way to
>> make often unconscious thoughts "explicit". But in that process, I
>> think we
>> often over-simplify and over-generalise (shall I use the word
>> "sterilise"?)
>> the subtle texture of meaning and connotations that exist in the
>> "analog"
>> world of say painting or guitar playing.
>>
>> I'm not saying that thinking "naturally" is not algorithmic in the
>> way you describe
>> above, I'm merely pointing out that abstracting thought into a
>> programming language
>> is precisely that - an abstraction - and as such we loose
>> something/some things.
>>
>> Of course guitar playing is an abstraction as well, but what I find
>> interesting in
>> the "analog" world is that our thoughts (here moving fingers being a
>> thought)
>> are not necessarily explicit (as is a necessity in thinking in code).
>
Received on Tue Sep 05 2006 - 10:48:50 BST