🚀 go-pugleaf

gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes:
> I reply:
> 
> Brain containing      Paper containing     Disk containing 
> Symbols         =====>marks          ====> magnetic domains==+
>                                                              |
>                                                         Memory containing
>                                                         electric charges
>                                                              | 
> Brain Containing      Screen containing     Computations     | 
> Symbols         <=====Light patterns   <====(transformation==+
>                                             from physical states
>                                             to other physical
>                                             states)
> Using a debugger doesn't really change this.  It is only when the
> light patterns get translated into symbols in our heads that the
> symbols exist.  We use physical states to represent symbols.  When you
> use a debugger, you impose a transformation from physical states of
> the computer's memory to other physical states (light patterns) on the
> screen or whatever.  These light patterns have no intrinsic meaning,
> only that we impose on them.  If you assert otherwise, I don't see how
> you can escape the conclusion that the physical patterns have meaning
> for everyone, since they themselves embody meaning.  But this cannot
> be true.  For example, when I read some mathematical text, I may see
> some fancy squiggle.  My first task is to find out what the author
> means by this fancy squiggle.  If the meaning were implicit in the
> fancy squiggle, I wouldn't have this problem.

Well, for the computer, the physical states don't mean anything until
we symbol-processors force it to interpret them one way or another....
thus to the computer, they are symbols. In other words, if we didn't
build computers the way we do, then the binary state of a particular
section of memory wouldn't *have* to mean what it does to the
computer.  Thus, i claim that the computer uses symbols too, albeit
different ones than we use.  To me it is as valid as you claiming that
a fancy squiggle is a symbol, since you have to go find out what it
means.  The computer is microcoded to figure out what its symbols are
supposed to mean - it doesn't happen that way by default.

> -Fred Gilham  gilham@csl.sri.com

- iain
"trip to the left please...."