[FRIAM] naive question
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 21 14:16:41 EDT 2022
Unfortunately those workstations are long gone from my life.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 9:16 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, not even from the user's perspective. The time program helps show how
> much system, process, and user time is executed by the same script on
> different systems. This is especially important on multi-user systems, but
> any system that allows multiple processes will show differences. I suggest
> you run your script, wrapped by time or strace on the different systems and
> examine the output.
>
> Now, *you* as the user, may not have noticed the differences in execution
> time or resource use. But *you* would not be the canonical Unix user, if
> that's the case. >8^D Hell, even on VMS, we were plagued with differences
> between successive executions of various scripts. That you didn't notice
> such is interesting.
>
> On 10/21/22 08:08, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > 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 <mailto:
> 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> <mailto: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/20221021/261927b7/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list