🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <24Yy02PR76bt01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com
(Ken Presting) writes:
>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 a 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.

I may have a somewhat radical viewpoint on this, but to me a symbol
is defined as such by the intention of the conscious being using it.
A symbol is a perceivable or detectable entity that is used to direct
attention to a particular reality or potential reality.

Charges, current pulses, etc., are rightly regraded as symbols only to
the extent that they are intended (ultimately) to be comprehended by
some sort of conscious entity as indicating certain realities (or
potential relaities).  In the absence of such intentions, they are not
symbols but mere charges, current pulses, etc.

Of course, things can be decoded without being *intended* to be so
decoded.  Scientists are continually decoding (understanding) elements
of the physical universe.  But these elements are (rightly) not
thought of as symbols because (unless one thinks of the universe as a
communication from God) they are not intended to be decoded in a
particular way.
-- 
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
431 Burgess Drive; Menlo Park, CA 94025