A talk of possible interest to FRIAMers

[Pamela McCorduck]

Jeanette Wing, the President's Professor of Computer Science,  
Carnegie Mellon University, and Associate Director, Computer and  
Information Science & Engineering, U.S. National Science Foundation,  
will give a talk on "Computational Thinking and Thinking about  
Computing."

Place: Santa Fe Institute, Robert N. Noyce Conference Room

When: Friday, July 11, 2008, at 3:30 p.m.

Abstract:  My vision for the 21st Century: Computational thinking  
will be the fundamental skill used by everyone in the world.  To  
reading, writing, and arithmetic, let's add computational thinking to  
every child's analytical ability.  Computational thinking has already  
influenced other disciplines, from the sciences to the arts.  The new  
NSF Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation initiative in a nutshell  
is computational thinking for science and engineering.  Realizing  
this vision gives the field of computing both exciting research  
opportunities and novel educational challenges.

The field of computing is driven by technology innovation, societal  
demands, and scientific questions.  We are often too easily swept u  
with the rapid progress in technology and the surprising uses by  
society of our technology, that we forget about the science that  
underlies our field.  In thinking about computing, I have started a  
list of "Deep Questions in Computing," with the hope of encouraging  
the community to think about the scientific drivers of our field.


Host: Joe Traub




"He has van Gogh's ear for music."

                                Billy Wilder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080705/277515b7/attachment.html 

[Peter-2-2]

Interesting Talk by Jeanette Wing who's online handle is Dragonlady ( wonderfull mythical pun ) that would make it DLCT

So we have computational thinking CT,  What fears that arises to develop into  PCCT "Politically Correct CT" or the only right way to think  " CTCT Correct Thinking CT ( Guided by suitably well minded intelligentsia just like CCCP ) especially targeting young manipulatable minds of children in education. What consideration that we are already ignoring reality of human thought and type with indicators such as MBTI creating a vision of a cuddly universal world through the distorted lens of computer hardware and APIs ( Now MBTICT  I could handle  especially how it sounds ) . Maybe Bill and Larrys world IS the future. We already have to much of Bill Gates Windows Computational Thinking BGWCT ( It that why SFI uses Macs, me to )

Siting in the midst of a group of biologists, some of whom are studying biomimicry potential, you could hear the unease and it the case of my neighbo  who kicked out ( feel ) in frustration over the statement " CT could enables you to target what you need without visualizing and understanding what is "  George Orwell here we come

To emphasize here is an article on how a computer was able to predict which death row inmates would be executed /www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/ns-ccp062508.php does CT mean it could do a better job if it was in charge " ouch " visions of minority report Philip K Dicks world .

Maybe its time to change homo sapiens to homo mimicus

Nice to attend a lecture that gets the blood flowing ( Terrible pun )

( : ( : pete


Pamela McCorduck wrote:

Jeanette Wing, the President's Professor of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, and Associate Director, Computer and Information Science & Engineering, U.S. National Science Foundation, will give a talk on "Computational Thinking and Thinking about Computing."

Place: Santa Fe Institute, Robert N. Noyce Conference Room

When: Friday, July 11, 2008, at 3:30 p.m.

Abstract:  My vision for the 21st Century: Computational thinking will be the fundamental skill used by everyone in the world.  To reading, writing, and arithmetic, let's add computational thinking to every child's analytical ability.  Computational thinking has already influenced other disciplines, from the sciences to the arts.  The new NSF Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation initiative in a nutshell is computational thinking for science and engineering.  Realizing this vision gives the field of computing both exciting research opportunities and novel educational challenges.

The field of computing is driven by technology innovation, societal demands, and scientific questions.  We are often too easily swept u with the rapid progress in technology and the surprising uses by society of our technology, that we forget about the science that underlies our field.  In thinking about computing, I have started a list of "Deep Questions in Computing," with the hope of encouraging the community to think about the scientific drivers of our field.

Host: Joe Traub

"He has van Gogh's ear for music."

Billy Wilder

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

peter wrote:
> So we have computational thinking CT,  What fears that arises to
> develop into  PCCT "Politically Correct CT" or the only right way to
> think  " CTCT Correct Thinking CT ( Guided by suitably well minded
> intelligentsia just like CCCP ) especially targeting young
> manipulatable minds of children in education. What consideration that
> we are already ignoring reality of human thought and type with
> indicators such as MBTI creating a vision of a cuddly universal world
> through the distorted lens of computer hardware and APIs ( Now MBTICT  
> I could handle  especially how it sounds ) .
If an interface (API) is bad, it's like jumping through the hoops of a
stupid bureaucrat and accomplishing nothing.   But the bureaucrat has
the force of government on his side, so people more or less conform.  
People don't need to be taught to conform to such constraints, they need
encouragement to demand better.  If an API is good, and helps solve a
tricky problem, and provides abstraction, then it's not fair to call it
a distorted lens.   Computational thinking is not just the uncritical
memorization of proprietary APIs, rather it's having some sense of when
those vendors are selling you something worth having..



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Pamela McCorduck]

Marcus and I heard a different talk.  I liked very much what Wing had to say about computational thinking.  She didn't say this must replace all other kinds of thinking, nor did she say computing is the answer to everything.   She seemed to me to offer a set of tools, mental and metal, that can address a bunch of problems we've always thought were intractable.  Will there be stupid applications?   Not for the first time in human history.

On Jul 12, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

peter wrote:

So we have computational thinking CT,  What fears that arises to 

develop into  PCCT "Politically Correct CT" or the only right way to 

think  " CTCT Correct Thinking CT ( Guided by suitably well minded 

intelligentsia just like CCCP ) especially targeting young 

manipulatable minds of children in education. What consideration that 

we are already ignoring reality of human thought and type with 

indicators such as MBTI creating a vision of a cuddly universal world 

through the distorted lens of computer hardware and APIs ( Now MBTICT  

I could handle  especially how it sounds ) .

If an interface (API) is bad, it's like jumping through the hoops of a 

stupid bureaucrat and accomplishing nothing.   But the bureaucrat has 

the force of government on his side, so people more or less conform.   

People don't need to be taught to conform to such constraints, they need 

encouragement to demand better.  If an API is good, and helps solve a 

tricky problem, and provides abstraction, then it's not fair to call it 

a distorted lens.   Computational thinking is not just the uncritical 

memorization of proprietary APIs, rather it's having some sense of when 

those vendors are selling you something worth having..

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"All things created have an order

in themselves, and this begets the form

that lets the universe resemble God."

Dante, "Paradiso"

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Owen Densmore]

I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite  
thought provoking.

An earlier version of her slides are here:
   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf
.. and a more narrative article is here:
   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing06.pdf
.. and the "5 Deep Questions" article is here:
   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing08.pdf
.. more on her home page:
   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wing/

I think the fundamental problem she poses is: "What are the core  
concepts in computing".  Sort of searching for the spanning set for  
educational purposes.

I rather like the concept.  Much different than "How do I program?"  
and more like "What is computational epistemology?"

I wish she had a blog/web presence.  But she's quite busy and may not  
find blogging natural to her way of doing things.  Ken Iversion was  
interested in this problem and wrote a few high-school textbooks using  
APL.  Ken was approaching the problem a bit differently: he wanted to  
disambiguate standard mathematical notation and to use that to build a  
concrete computational epistemology .. i.e. build the spanning set I  
think Jeannette is interested in, although without the internet  
components.

    -- Owen


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Don Begley]

I've began a complextalk blog before but fell behind on using it. It's  
intended to be a casual narrative of the daily happenings at Santa Fe  
Complex. I just updated it and will try to keep it current. It is open  
for comments, too. If it gets hits, I'll keep it going.

Thanks to those of you who contributed to Santa Fe Complex. I  
appreciate the funds, of course, but also your patience with the  
payment glitches.

---
Don Begley
Managing Director
Santa Fe Complex
624 Agua Fria
Santa Fe, NM 87501

www.santafecomplex.org
505-216-7562
505.670.9432 (cell)







============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Carl Tollander]

Why computational thinking rather than complexity thinking or (egad)
category thinking or political ethics or conflict resolution or good
design or shop or....?   What makes computational thinking more enabling
(if not more "fundamental")?  

ct

Owen Densmore wrote:

> I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite  
> thought provoking.
>
> An earlier version of her slides are here:
>    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf
> .. and a more narrative article is here:
>    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing06.pdf
> .. and the "5 Deep Questions" article is here:
>    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing08.pdf
> .. more on her home page:
>    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wing/
>
> I think the fundamental problem she poses is: "What are the core  
> concepts in computing".  Sort of searching for the spanning set for  
> educational purposes.
>
> I rather like the concept.  Much different than "How do I program?"  
> and more like "What is computational epistemology?"
>
> I wish she had a blog/web presence.  But she's quite busy and may not  
> find blogging natural to her way of doing things.  Ken Iversion was  
> interested in this problem and wrote a few high-school textbooks using  
> APL.  Ken was approaching the problem a bit differently: he wanted to  
> disambiguate standard mathematical notation and to use that to build a  
> concrete computational epistemology .. i.e. build the spanning set I  
> think Jeannette is interested in, although without the internet  
> components.
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>  

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Pamela McCorduck wrote:
> Marcus and I heard a different talk.  I liked very much what Wing had
> to say about computational thinking.  She didn't say this must replace
> all other kinds of thinking, nor did she say computing is the answer
> to everything.   She seemed to me to offer a set of tools, mental and
> metal, that can address a bunch of problems we've always thought were
> intractable.  Will there be stupid applications?   Not for the first
> time in human history.
What I found grating was just the later remark about the "distorted lens
of computer hardware and APIs" (which Pete said but maybe it came from
someone else -- I wasn't at the talk).  Designing good software
interfaces is not easy, and he billions Intel, TSMC, IBM, etc. spend on
CPU architecture, validation and photolithography processes suggest that
more than a little thought has gone into these hardware designs too.

As far as I can tell it is not meaningful to parameterize the design of
a programming language to personality type.  I'd say the main relevant
"reality of human thought" is not personality, but that all programmers
must struggle with small, fragile short term memory constraints.  So,
I'd say techniques for improving computational thinking are welcome and
needed, even by people in the field.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Owen wrote:
>> I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite  
>> thought provoking.
>>
>> An earlier version of her slides are here:
>>    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf
>> .. and a more narrative article is here:
>>    
A recent one from bioinformatics is the need to find patterns in order
to gain insight into how pathogens work.  Instead of  "make a hypothesis
and test it", now the goal is to test every possible hypothesis, or at
least many of them.   So it's necessary to consider how a pattern in a
large pool of tests might arise at random.   The computational
capability (together with microarray technology) drives the need for a
new statistical tool.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Pamela McCorduck]

Carl, the Institute and Jeannette Wing  plan  to think more together.  She was very upfront about her general ignorance about complexity, and could only say that "intuitively" she felt they might have something to say to each other.   Her list of examples of computational thinking--which I now have thanks to Owen's pointers (many thanks indeed for your research, Owen)--all precede any notion of the sciences of complexity.  Indeed, one could argue (and George Cowan, for example, does) that thinking about complexity in the way the Santa Fe Institute and its offspring think about complexity was impossible in any rigorous, scientific way before computing. 

But nomenclature is a funny thing, and who knows what this kind of thinking, these kinds of mental tools, will end up being called?

On Jul 12, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

Why computational thinking rather than complexity thinking or (egad) 

category thinking or political ethics or conflict resolution or good 

design or shop or....?   What makes computational thinking more enabling 

(if not more "fundamental")?   

ct

Owen Densmore wrote:

I'm not sure how many of us were there, but I found the talk quite  

thought provoking.

An earlier version of her slides are here:

   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-and-tc-long.pdf

.. and a more narrative article is here:

   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing06.pdf

.. and the "5 Deep Questions" article is here:

   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/Wing08.pdf

.. more on her home page:

   http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wing/

I think the fundamental problem she poses is: "What are the core  

concepts in computing".  Sort of searching for the spanning set for  

educational purposes.

I rather like the concept.  Much different than "How do I program?"  

and more like "What is computational epistemology?"

I wish she had a blog/web presence.  But she's quite busy and may not  

find blogging natural to her way of doing things.  Ken Iversion was  

interested in this problem and wrote a few high-school textbooks using  

APL.  Ken was approaching the problem a bit differently: he wanted to  

disambiguate standard mathematical notation and to use that to build a  

concrete computational epistemology .. i.e. build the spanning set I  

think Jeannette is interested in, although without the internet  

components.

    -- Owen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"All things created have an order

in themselves, and this begets the form

that lets the universe resemble God."

Dante, "Paradiso"

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Paul Paryski]

Perhaps CT in the hands of hedge fund manipulators, the Pentagon and oil speculators has been very detrimental to our suffering planet.  Perhaps real thought precedes CT.  I, for one, found Wing's talk lacked appropriate complexity. 
Paul


**************
Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

[hidden email] wrote:
> Perhaps CT in the hands of hedge fund manipulators, the Pentagon and
> oil speculators has been very detrimental to our suffering planet.  
> Perhaps real thought precedes CT.  
Ahem.  "Real thought" is a question of good and evil?  


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Paul Paryski]

Real thought does include agendas, goals and self interest, I "think."  But real thought can be an imaginative, intuitive process, super conscious, e.g., Bach, Einstein?
Paul


**************
Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Marcus G. Daniels]

[hidden email] wrote:
> Real thought does include agendas, goals and self interest, I
> "think."  But real thought can be an imaginative, intuitive process,
> super conscious, e.g., Bach, Einstein?
She says "thinking recursively", "parallel processing", "interpreting
code as data and data as code", and "type checking and a generalization
of dimensional analysis", understanding the "virtues and dangers of
aliasing"  are computational thinking.

But then she goes on to say "Conceptualizing, not programming.  Computer
science is not computer programming.  Thinking like a computer scientist
means more than being able to program a computer.  It requires thinking
at multiple levels of abstraction."

Now, I like Computer Scientists, really I do, but I have to say I have
at least as much admiration for hackers who just invent and put aside
all of this self-aggrandizing crap.   All of those things (e.g
recursively thinking, thinking at multiple levels of abstraction) any
decent programmer thinks about every day, AND while exercising their
imagination and intuition.

Btw, today's Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com) is a relevant snipe on a
related species of the theory guy.





============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Robert Holmes]

I must admit I'm having a hard time understanding Jeanette's "simple daily examples" (I'm taking this from the slides that Owen linked to; I didn't attend the talk itself). Knowledge of parallel processing would help me cook better? If I could remember those hashing algorithms I'd be able to clean the living room more effectively? Really? I mean, really?

And what about all those problems where CT is either unhelpful or plain wrong: learning Spanish, finding a meaning to life, finding the longest strand of spaghetti in a pack (OK, not sure why I'd want to do that but I know that CT won't help).

Saying that CT is up there with reading riting and rithmetic is an awfully big claim. Not sure it's working for me yet...

Robert

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

[hidden email] wrote:
> Real thought does include agendas, goals and self interest, I
> "think."  But real thought can be an imaginative, intuitive process,
> super conscious, e.g., Bach, Einstein?

She says "thinking recursively", "parallel processing", "interpreting
code as data and data as code", and "type checking and a generalization
of dimensional analysis", understanding the "virtues and dangers of
aliasing"  are computational thinking.

But then she goes on to say "Conceptualizing, not programming.  Computer
science is not computer programming.  Thinking like a computer scientist
means more than being able to program a computer.  It requires thinking
at multiple levels of abstraction."

Now, I like Computer Scientists, really I do, but I have to say I have
at least as much admiration for hackers who just invent and put aside
all of this self-aggrandizing crap.   All of those things (e.g
recursively thinking, thinking at multiple levels of abstraction) any
decent programmer thinks about every day, AND while exercising their
imagination and intuition.

Btw, today's Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com) is a relevant snipe on a
related species of the theory guy.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Carl Tollander]

Marcus,

If we are to rule, they must convince us that it is a worthwhile use of
our time.

C.

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> [hidden email] wrote:
>  
>> Real thought does include agendas, goals and self interest, I
>> "think."  But real thought can be an imaginative, intuitive process,
>> super conscious, e.g., Bach, Einstein?
>>    
> She says "thinking recursively", "parallel processing", "interpreting
> code as data and data as code", and "type checking and a generalization
> of dimensional analysis", understanding the "virtues and dangers of
> aliasing"  are computational thinking.
>
> But then she goes on to say "Conceptualizing, not programming.  Computer
> science is not computer programming.  Thinking like a computer scientist
> means more than being able to program a computer.  It requires thinking
> at multiple levels of abstraction."
>
> Now, I like Computer Scientists, really I do, but I have to say I have
> at least as much admiration for hackers who just invent and put aside
> all of this self-aggrandizing crap.   All of those things (e.g
> recursively thinking, thinking at multiple levels of abstraction) any
> decent programmer thinks about every day, AND while exercising their
> imagination and intuition.
>
> Btw, today's Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com) is a relevant snipe on a
> related species of the theory guy.
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>  

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org