Computer programming (coding) also promotes clear logical thinking and is an instructive source of easily understood analogies for otherwise difficult topics in philosophy, including Buddhist philosophy. For example, the key Buddhist concept of three levels of dependent existence can be understood in terms of algorithms, data structures and semantics , as well as the more traditional view as causality, mereology and mental designation. The use of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle to distinguish between the physical and non-physical aspects of the mind follows on from this.

Dumbing down

So it’s a matter of concern that as computers become more pervasive, actual computer literacy has declined over the past ten or fifteen years due a process of dumbing down in schools and colleges. Not only does this impact vocational skills, but lack of computer coding experience among younger people means that computer concepts can no longer be used to illustrate analogies in other fields of study. Back in the mid-nineties, the growth in familiarity with computer programming was welcomed as a means of illustrating philosophical concepts.

Thanks again for both your writings

Good to hear from you.

I found your thesis through an Australian high school math/science teacher’s blog back in ’07. His name is Bill Kerr (I just updated my post to give him a couple “hat tips”). I read through your whole thesis when I got time. I took copious notes, because I thought it was important enough to write about in some way. I think I finally finished going through it a few years later. The reason I didn’t use your paper earlier was I lacked a context for it. Then this video showed up a couple weeks ago talking about bringing programming into education and I thought, “Okay! Now I have a context for it!”

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for writing your thesis and making it available (perhaps the university you attended does that as a matter of course). I found what you wrote engaging and enriching. As I progress, trying to learn about computing in the context that Alan Kay talks about, I feel like I get closer and closer to understanding what he’s trying to get across. I feel like I understand your paper better now than when I first read it, as well.

I’ve seen Kay try to engage the wider computer science community re. his “systems science” concept. Maybe he’s gotten some more takers, though that hasn’t been apparent in the discourse I’ve seen. I don’t know if adding my voice to the chorus will cause more people to take notice, understand what he’s getting at, and consider it important enough to do something about it, but I do think it helps to have more than one person repeatedly making the points (you are one, as am I), as it seems decisions about approaches are more about consensus than deep introspection. I wish that were not the case, as I’m certain that Kay’s idea of a “systems science” is not the end-all-be-all of computing, nor is it the end of the story of computing’s potential. What’s more important to get across to people, and this gets to Kay’s provocative question, “Should we even be teaching programming,” is different outlooks. The grey matter is what counts. As Kay said, “The music is not in the piano.”

Since I finished my dissertation half-a-dozen years ago, Alan Kay himself has continued to repeat and elaborate on his message. Every so often the media rediscover him and go interview him again (the launch of the iPad was a good opportunity, apparently). His point remains the same: we’ve been utterly crippled by the poverty of our own imaginations. And while bits of his wisdom creep slowly into our ways of working, I wonder sometimes if Alan Kay will remain “ahead of his time” indefinitely.

Here’s yet another Kay interview, this from April 2, 2013 (that is, today): http://techland.time.com/2013/04/02/an-interview-with-computing-pioneer-alan-kay/

- John Maxwell