[Reader-list] alternative Software

[Supreet Sethi]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:55:59PM -0500, Are Flagan wrote:
> On 11/30/02 13:46, "Supreet Sethi" <supreet at sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> 
> > Probably what I am understanding of your article or essay is wrong so I
> > need clarification on certain words and constructs
> > 1) What does Alternative mean here
> 
> I guess that's what I am partly trying to figure out. If we are so keen on
> open source and the development of independent standards, surely these would
> by definition be approaching this "alternative," at least in their intent.
> The essay asks a tentative "what if..."

independent standrad of what    computing ......

> 
> 
> > 2) How does it offer a critique of universal principles laid down by
> > hardware
> 
> I would say that it only points to a critique of universality (and hints at
> its effects).
> 
> > 3) Is this essay making a claim that the mathematical model on which
> > computeres and many electronic devices is wrong. Finite autmata as a model
> > has been used over and over again and is considered a thoroughly
> > understood subject
> 
> It is not really making a binary value judgment explicitly (it is not a
> computer, in other words). One could perhaps also say, with reference to how
> software/hardware (finite automata) is used and distributed, and what
> economies it participates in, that it is equally misunderstood.
> 


do'nt understand what you say when you refer to (what economies it 
participates in). Its like asking how much of GDP of world economy is 
contributed by pythagorus theorum.








>                    
> > Is there any sort of study on which problems/solution scenerios are beyond
> > computational margins.
> > Could you point me to the texts which cover this topic well.
> >
> 
> The straight answer would be that anything that is not either true or false
> and can be processed according to the operators AND, OR, NOT would easily
> fall beyond the present computational margins. The links in Mark Crosby's
> post contain, at first glance, some interesting overviews of various
> questions posed... 


Most of the problems posed outside AND,OR,NOT sceneario are very 
subjectiv. Computer  
would need a big dataset even to make assumption on probable answer, that 
to in theory.

Example would lets say predicte last world war or would I sleep south 
wards or northwards today.
But any kind of speculative logic would at micor level dependent on 
AND,OR,NOT



>   
> > It would be even better if you could point to a live problem/solution
> > sceneario where hardware/software constraints could be made glaringly
> > visible.
> >
> 
> This is the crux and contention: the conjuncture of
> hardware/software/logic/math and language/culture/society effectively seek
> to preclude such visibility. It seamlessly integrates its program into a
> machine operation and thereby mechanizes and naturalizes its appearance.
> >  
> > As you have already stated in your easy about neural network, I would like
> > to push the discussion around that topic. Neural network approach to
> > computing does not base its treatment of data not on the basis of preset
> > algorithm but rely on a learning of certain types of data and computing on
> > basis of shift of synaptic weights.
> >  
> > Minsky wrote a doctorate thesis at princeton which sort of dealt with
> > topic of neural networks.
> > In 1967 Minsky wrote a book called Computation: Finite and Infinite
> > Machines which put "neural networks" in context of automata theory and the
> > theory of computation
> >  
> > Would like hear more on this
> 
> I see it as a super vast field with many angles and possibilities. If
> software/hardware is indeed an incarnation, an embodiment, of mind, is it
> possible for it to think for itself? Immediately we return to the core split
> in the philosophy of mind (reflected in the Cartesian subject): are these
> thoughts really mine or do they belong to discursive differences, outside
> me? Can a neural net be other than the learning mechanisms imposed upon it,
> the instructions already given? Ada Lovelace remarked about the very first
> "computer" that it could do nothing but what we told it. Turing seemed to
> believe that his machines could inhabit their own intelligence, a character
> specific to its algebraic make up. Our understanding and application of
> "software" may ultimately be contingent upon exactly how such epic
> conundrums are resolved and/or resisted.
> 
> -af 


Given computewith suffcient storage mechenism, processing power, enough 
stimulus to build intelligence dataset, we would see intellligence.

Human beings are not special.






> 
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

-- 
supreet at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org