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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
