🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <968@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>On reflection, I don't think you can dispose of the issue that easily
>by differentiating between the program and the hardware.  The program
>is a schema that describes the electronic state the hardware should
>be in when the code file is loaded.  In a very real sense, then, the
>shape of the physical machine has been altered by loading the code
>file, just as much as if you had flipped switches within the machine
>(as we used to do with the old panel switches).  So after the code is
>loaded, there is actually a different physical machine there, just as
>much as if one had gone out and bought a different machine.

This is e very good point, and often overlooked.  The physical
instantiation of data immensely complicates the concept of "symbol system".
  When machines were built from gears and axles, it was trivial to
distinguish symbols from mechanisms.  Symbols are part of a language, are
written or spoken, and (most importantly) have no mechanical functions.
But communication and computing devices blur the distinction.  In these
machines, an instance of a symbol (a charge, a current pulse, a switch)
has a mechanical role in the operation of the device.
  The first problem that arises is how to distinguish symbol manipulation
systems from other machines.  What makes a symbol "explicit"? The clearest
case of explicit symbols is printed text in a human language, but we need
to resolve hard cases.  One hard case is microcode or firmware.  The
hardest case is probably neural nets.
  Conclusion:  No definition of "symbol manipulation system" which uses
the term "explicit" will be of much help (until "explicit" is defined).