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