[cap-talk] Don't understand capabilities
devbox at selnet.org
Wed Nov 1 05:55:58 CST 2006
On 28/10/2006, at 14.33, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>At Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:13:42 +0100,
>David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> > At Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:19:38 -0700,
>> > Jed at Webstart <donnelley1 at webstart.com> wrote:
>> >>If we haven't adequately conveyed that message so that somebody can
>> >>do "much reading" on the capability concept and still not understand
>> >>it then I think something is seriously wrong with "our" message.
>> > Mmmh. I have a gut feeling here. Capabilities may be difficult to
>> > understand because they are not "natural", in the sense that they are
>> > not a concept that comes out of human experience.
>> They are no more or less so than "objects" in the object-oriented
>> programming sense.
>Why do you think so? Certainly, the human mind has a great capacity
>to identify and abstract objects in the real world. Furthermore,
>"operating on an object" seems also to be a concept inherent to the
>human mind, as the passive voice shows which is part of our language
>(have to check with a linguist if it is universal, but it's hard to
It is said that the human mind is the most sophisticated computer.
Machines are created by the human mind, certainly we do recognize human
faces at a glance, while computers need a great amount of calculations to
>I don't see how a similar argument could be constructed for
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
More information about the cap-talk