[FRIAM] naive question
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 21 11:08:48 EDT 2022
Yes. From the user's perspective they ran identically. Those workstations
didn't even have the same instruction sets.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 8:24 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> By "ran identically", you actually mean "produced identical outputs". They
> didn't run identically. Simple ways to see this are system and process
> monitors, top, strace, etc.
>
> On 10/20/22 17:19, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > Back in the 80s I wrote many Unix shell scripts. For my purposes they
> ran identically on various workstations whether Sun, SG, or, eventually,
> Vax (running Unix). The software existed in my mind/brain, in files in the
> various filesystems, or on paper listings. What's wrong with my thinking?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> >
> > 505 670-9918
> > Santa Fe, NM
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 3:52 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a simulationist. Everything I do
> is in terms of analogy [⛧]. But there is no such thing as a fully
> transparent or opaque box. And there is no such thing as "software". All
> processes are executed by some material mechanism. So if by "computational
> metaphor", you mean the tossing out of the differences between any 2
> machines executing the same code, then I'm right there with you in
> rejecting it. No 2 machines can execute the same (identical) code. But if
> you define an analogy well, then you can replace one machine with another
> machine, up to some similarity criterion. Equivalence is defined by that
> similarity criterion. By your use of the qualifier "merely" in "merely the
> equivalent", I infer you think there's something *other* than equivalence,
> something other than simulation. I reject that. It's all equivalence, just
> some tighter and some looser.
> >
> > [⛧] Everyone's welcome to replace "analogy" with "metaphor" if they
> so choose. But, to me, "metaphor" tends to wipe away or purposefully ignore
> the pragmatics involved in distinguishing any 2 members of an equivalence
> class. The literary concept of "metaphor" has it right. It's a rhetorical,
> manipulative trick to help us ignore actual difference, whereas "analogy"
> helps us remember and account for differences and similarities. "Metaphor"
> is an evil word, a crucial tool in the toolkit for manipulators and
> gaslighters.
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/22 13:27, Prof David West wrote:
> > >
> > > Marcus and glen (and others on occasion) have posted frequently
> on the "algorithmic "equivalent" of [some feature] of consciousness, human
> emotion, etc.
> > >
> > > I am always confronted with the question of of "how equivalent?"
> I am almost certain that they are not saying anything close to absolute
> equivalence - i.e., that the brain/mind is executing the same algorithm
> albeit in, perhaps, a different programming language. But, are their
> assertions meant to be "analogous to," "a metaphor for," or some other
> semi/pseudo equivalence?
> > >
> > > Perhaps all that is being said is we have two black boxes into
> which we put the same inputs and arrive at the same outputs. Voila! We
> expose the contents of one black box, an algorithm executing on silicon.
> From that we conclude it does not matter what is happening inside the other
> black box—whatever it is, our, now, white box is an 'equivalent'.
> > >
> > > Put another way: If I have two objects, A and B, each with an
> (ir)regular edge. in this case the irregular edge of A is an inverse match
> to that of B—when put together there are no gaps between the two edges.
> They "fit."
> > >
> > > Assume that A and B have some means to detect if they "fit"
> together. I can think of algorithms that could determine fit, a simplistic
> iteration across all points to see if there was a gap between it and its
> neighbor, to some kind of collision detection.
> > >
> > > Is it the case that whatever means used by A and B to detect fit,
> it is _*/merely/*_ the equivalent of such an algorithm?
> > >
> > > The roots of this question go back to my first two published
> papers, in _AI Magazine_ (then the 'journal of record' for AI research);
> one critical of the computational metaphor, the second a set of alternative
> metaphors of mind. An excerpt relevant to the above example of fit.
> > >
> > > /Tactilizing Processor
> > > /
> > > /Conrad draws his inspiration from the ability of an enzyme to
> combine with a substrate on the basis of the physical congruency of
> their respective shapes (topography). This is a generalized version of
> the lock-and-key mechanism as the hormone-receptor matching discussed
> by Bergland. When the topographic shape of an enzyme (hormone)
> matches that of a substrate (receptor), a simple recognize-
> by-touch mechanism (like two pieces of a puzzle fitting together)
> allows a simple decision, binary state change, or process to take
> place, hence the label “tactilizing processor.”/
> > >
> > > Hormones and enzymes, probably/possibly, lack the ability to
> compute (execute algorithms), so, at most, the black box equivalence might
> be used here.
> > >
> > > [BTW, tactilizing processors were built, but were extremely slow
> (speed of chemical reactions) but had some advantages derived from
> parallelism. Similar 'shape matching' computation was explored in DNA
> computing as well.]
> > >
> > > My interest in the issue is the (naive) question about how our
> understanding of mind/consciousness is fatally impeded by putting all our
> research eggs into the simplistic 'algorithm box'?
> > >
> > > It seems to me that we have the CS/AI/ML equivalent of the
> quantum physics world where everyone is told to "shut up and compute"
> instead of actually trying to understand the domain and the theory.
> > >
> > > davew
>
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20221021/f1ee24ac/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list