Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 239–285 | Cite as

The Bit (and Three Other Abstractions) Define the Borderline Between Hardware and Software

  • Russ AbbottEmail author
Article

Abstract

Modern computing is generally taken to consist primarily of symbol manipulation. But symbols are abstract, and computers are physical. How can a physical device manipulate abstract symbols? Neither Church nor Turing considered this question. My answer is that the bit, as a hardware-implemented abstract data type, serves as a bridge between materiality and abstraction. Computing also relies on three other primitive—but more straightforward—abstractions: Sequentiality, State, and Transition. These physically-implemented abstractions define the borderline between hardware and software and between physicality and abstraction. At a deeper level, asking how a physical device can interact with abstract symbols is the wrong question. The relationship between symbols and physical devices begins with the realization that human beings already know what it means to manipulate symbols. We build and program computers to do what we understand to be symbol manipulation. To understand what that means, consider a light switch. A light switch doesn’t turn a light on or off. Those are abstractions. Light switches don’t operate with abstractions. We build light switches (and their associated circuitry), so that when flipped, the world is changed in such a way that we understand the light to be on or off. Similarly, we build computers to perform operations that we understand as manipulating symbols.

Keywords

Symbol Abstraction Hardware Software Physical symbol system Hardware–software bridge Type Abstract data type Bit Affordances Concept externalization Symbol grounding 

Notes

References

  1. Abbott, R. (2008). If a tree casts a shadow is it telling the time? International Journal of Unconventional Computing, 4(3), 195–222.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, R. (2009). Bits don’t have error bars: Upward conceptualization and downward approximation. In I. Poel & D. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 285–294). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott, R. (2018). Meaning, autonomy, symbolic causality, and free will. Review of General Psychology, 22, 85–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbott, R. (2019). A software inspired constructive view of nature. Presented at the 2016 conference of the international association for computing and philosophy. To appear in selected papers from that conference. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Blum, L., Shub, M., & Smale, S. (1989). On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 21(1), 1–46.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bringsjord, S. (2015). The symbol grounding problem… remains unsolved. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 27(1), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chua, H.-C. (2018). Teaching notes, National Taiwan University. https://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/ehchua/programming/java/datarepresentation.html.
  8. Church, A. (1932). A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics, 32(33), 346–366.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cubek, R., Ertel, W., & Palm, G. (2015). A critical review on the symbol grounding problem as an issue of autonomous agents. In Joint German/Austrian conference on artificial intelligence (Künstliche Intelligenz) (pp. 256–263). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Cuffaro, M. E., & Fletcher, S. C. (Eds.). (2018). Physical perspectives on computation, computational perspectives on physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York City: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Abingdon-on-Thames: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Günther, F., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2018). Symbol grounding without direct experience: Do words inherit sensorimotor activation from purely Linguistic context? Cognitive science, 42, 336–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssen, T. M. V. (2017). Montague semantics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition).Google Scholar
  17. Liskov, B., & Zilles, S. (1974). Programming with abstract data types. ACM Sigplan Notices, 9(4), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCullogh, W. (1960). What is a number that a man may know it, and a man, that he may know a number? Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, Institute of General Semantics, Princeton Club, NY, NY. First published in General Semantics Bulletin, No. 26/27, 7-18. Reprinted in www.vordenker.de (Winter Edition 2008/2009) J. Paul (Ed.) http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_what-is-a-number.pdf.
  19. McCullough, W. (1964). What’s in the brain that ink may character? International congress for logic, methodology and philosophy of science, Jerusalem, Israel, August 28, 1964, first published in Embodiments of Mind (pp. 387–397). MIT Press. Reprinted in www.vordenker.de (Winter Edition 2008/2009) J. Paul (Ed.). http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_whats-in-the-brain.pdf.
  20. Miyazaki, H. (2013). The wind rises. Koganei: Studio Ghibli.Google Scholar
  21. Müller, V. C. (2015). Which symbol grounding problem should we try to solve? Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 27(1), 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4, 135–183. (Newell includes the following footnote to the paper title. “Herb Simon would be a co-author of this paper, except that he is giving his own paper at this conference. The key ideas are entirely joint”.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and (expanded ed.). New York City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  26. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Piccinini, G. (2015). Physical computation: A mechanistic account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosen, G. (2017). Abstract objects. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition).Google Scholar
  29. Sony Corporation. (1974). Ad for a Sony sound system. Radio-Electronics, p 13. https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Radio-Electronics/70s/1974/Radio-Electronics-1974-02.pdf.
  30. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2007). A praxical solution of the symbol grounding problem. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 369–389. This paper is reprinted in Floridi, L. (2011) The Philosophy of Information (Oxford, UK: OUP).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turing, A. M. (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2 (published 1937), 42(1), 230–265.  https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230. Turing, A. M. (1938). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem: A correction. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2, 43(6), 544–6.  https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-43.6.544.
  32. Turner, R. (2011). Specification. Minds and Machines, 21(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, R., & Angius, N. (2017). The philosophy of computer science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition).Google Scholar
  34. The Unicode Consortium. (2017). The Unicode ® Standard Version 10.0Core specification. The Unicode Consortium. http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/UnicodeStandard-10.0.pdf.
  35. US Copyright Office. Website, FAQ page. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  36. van Eijck, J. (2010) A program for computational semantics. Slides for informal presentation. Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI), Amsterdam, Universities of Utrecht, Amsterdam. https://homepages.cwi.nl/~jve/courses/10/pdfs/APFCS.pdf and http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.297.9166&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  37. van Eijck, J., & Unger, C. (2010). Computational semantics with functional programming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, H. (1957). A variant to Turing’s theory of computing machines. Journal of the ACM, 4(1), 63–92.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wetzel, L. (2009). Types and tokens: On abstract objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wetzel, L. (2018). Types and tokens. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition).Google Scholar
  41. Wirth, N. (1971). The programming language Pascal. Acta Informatica, 1, 35–63.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen, volume 114 of Oxford studies in the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Woodward, J. (2014). A functional account of causation; or, a defense of the legitimacy of causal thinking by reference to the only standard that matters—Usefulness (as opposed to metaphysics or agreement with intuitive judgment). Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCalifornia State University, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations