h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"In the analogy with "mind", the "program" is only the very last one - everything else, even a BINARY listing of what gets fed into the register of the processor, is NOT the program but just a representation of it." OK, I can agree with that as far as it goes. IF you consider the MIND a "program" (by your definition) then it *should* be possible to make a "program" (by my definition) out of it (i.e. a list of instructions/parameters to "store" it independent of the mind on which it is running).

"...that you've allowed that while the instructions are the same it's the same program, but that you don't allow that to be the case for the FORTRAN instructions. What's the difference? Is the FORTRAN program not a program? If not, what is it? ..."

I didn't say that. I SAID the Fortran instructions ARE a program and while THEY are not changed the program remains the same. IF you need to change the program (e.g. compile it in a different language) then it is no longer the same program.

I guess you have to consider the "point of execution" if a computer needs to change the code in order for it to be run then it si NOT the same program. IF the computer instead of "recompiling" has an interpreter that runs the code, then, at the point of execution the program is the same (there are several examples of interpreters able to run the same "code" (or program) on differing hardware and/or software platforms (e.g. Java, Doom interpreters, Fenix, etc...) now, these programs (the interpreters) ARE different on different platforms - just the programs (the list of instructions)that they RUN/Interpret are the same no matter which platform they are run on.

So to sum up the SAME program (list of instructions) can lead to a different program (state of the computer, instructions the computer is currently running) depending on various factors (processor, environment, etc...)... So we are BOTH right...


"Like I said - at what level? What is "the program"?

- the underlying algorithm? " ?
NO
"- the FORTRAN listing?"
YES
"- the pattern of bits that make up the stored FORTRAN program in the computer memory?"
YES (same program, different form)
"- the OPCODE representation of the assembly language output of the compiler?"
NOT the same program.
"- the hexadecimal representation of the same output?"
Is this a set of instructions that can be "run"? Are they the same instructions as above...
"- the actual physical internal arrangement of the processor while the program is running?"
This is not the program - as the CPU will also need to contain the OS (at least). If you mean the specific bit resulting from the program, then, I would say, again NO, this is the OUTPUT state of the instructions that ARE the program...

BTW can you be bothered arguing with STEVE?

"In the analogy with "mind", the "program" is only the very last one - everything else, even a BINARY listing of what gets fed into the register of the processor, is NOT the program but just a representation of it." OK, I can agree with that as far as it goes. IF you consider the MIND a "program" (by your definition) then it *should* be possible to make a "program" (by my definition) out of it (i.e. a list of instructions/parameters to "store" it independent of the mind on which it is running).

What I meant by that (of course) is that it should be possible to create a "program" (my def) that leads to the same state as your program (your def).

Argon0

BTW SoRB - this is the thread which needs your/our attention (I invite anyone else from H2G2 to lay into this one too!!!)http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/1911968755/fetch/399878/

Basically its a guy claiming that the moon landings were a Hoax, and trying to convince us it is by saying the parachutes deployed by the return module (Command Module?) would have "ripped to shreds" at such a high speed, and refusing to understand about Drogue chutes.

I can't be bothered arguing with that guy for a number of reasons:

1. The site is covered with intrusive ads and popups. Not good.
2. The interface is horrible and I can't be bothered spending the ten minutes it might take me to learn how to use it better, if that's even possible.
3. The guy commits the grave error of being a moron but NOT being funny. Della is at least demonstrably entertaining. Yer man "Steve" is not.
4. His arguments are beyond weak.

In short, it would be no fun. Sorry.

SoRB

""- the OPCODE representation of the assembly language output of the compiler?"
NOT the same program.
"- the hexadecimal representation of the same output?"
Is this a set of instructions that can be "run"? Are they the same instructions as above..."

No, they're not the same, because one is a list of opcodes, eg.

LD A, H
LD B, L
DEC A
INC B
RET

Etc.

The other is a list of numbers, like this:

E4
46
F3
DD
3E

Now, they both *represent* the same program. Are they the same thing? One of them is relatively easily readable by someone who knows assembly language, the other could only be read by some sort of autistic savant who'd memorise the hex code of every opcode.

I think what I'm getting at is that I feel strongly that a computer program is a PROCESS, and in exactly the same way "mind" is a PROCESS. You can *describe* the process, you can even *prescribe* the process (i.e. you can write down the program in one form or another), but the *description* is not the *process*, any more, as I said, than a Haynes manual is a car.

SoRB

Ah! You make a good point - one with which I whole heartedly agree (!) YES Steve IS a Moron.... However his arguments with Clavius did raise a chuckle or two!!

Also I agree ( will wonders never cease!) a better analogy to the "mind" would be a Process on a computer (e.g. a windows process) rather than the program which leads to the process.

Gosh...

A reply to post 41.

Sorry, you're wrong. I'm not going to delve very deeply into things about which I know very little, but nonetheless more than I want too; but I'm still sure you're wrong.

I know not who gave Della that nickname. She accused you, and you did not directly deny it. What you said is that she earned it. That may or may not be true, and is, in any case, irrelevant. If you are the one who came up with that nickname, the one who originally used it, and the one who popularised it, then you are the one who gave it to her. It's as simple as that.

TRiG.

Exodus 12:12 "on all the gods of Egypt I shall execute judgments".

Numbers 33:4 "upon their gods Jehovah had executed judgments".

Each of the plagues revealed the powerlessness of a specific Egyptian god, discomfiting Egypt's priests.



Judges 11:24 "Is it not whomever Chemosh your god causes you to dispossess that you will dispossess? And every one whom Jehovah our God has dispossessed from before us is the one we shall dispossess."

This is, let it be noted, part of a message sent by Jephthah, one of Israel's 'judges' or war leaders, to "the king of the sons of Ammon" (vs 12). Let's evaluate it in context.

Ammon was attacking Israel. Jephthah said, basically, that whoever had the stronger god supporting his battle line would win. This is, presumably, true.

Now, you could understand that in many ways. Let's look at two.
(a) Jephthah believed that Jehovah was stronger than Chemosh, or that Jehovah would support the Israelites more than Chemosh would support the Ammonites.

(b) Jephthah believed that Chemosh didn't exist at all, and that, with Jehovah backing the Isrealites and no one supporting the Ammonites, a victory was assurred. But, in this letter to the Ammonite king, he mentioned this deity who he (the Ammonite) believed in, just as a by-the-way.

(Whichever of these theories seems more likely, you could also read this passage as "bring it on".)



Psalm 82:1 "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges."

This is a very interesting one, as the context shows that the word 'gods' here applies to human judges: "How long will you keep on judging with injustice and showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy. To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice." (vss 2, 3)

(This interpretation is supported by the Syriac text and by the Aramaic Targums.)

(I refer you also to 1 Corinthians 8:5, which says "For even though there are those who are called 'gods', whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords', ... .")

When Jesus was accused of blasphemy for calling himself God's Son, he used this psalm in his defence. "If he [God] called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God’s Son?" (John 10:35, 36)



Psalm 96:4 "He is fear-inspiring above all other gods."

Again, let's look at a little context:

"For Jehovah is great and very much to be praised.
He is fear-inspiring above all other gods.
For all the gods of the peoples are valueless gods;
But as for Jehovah, he has made the very heavens."

How do you understand the word 'valueless'? You could take it to mean that they don't exist at all.

None of this post disproves what you say. It just points out that yours is not the only explanation, or even, necessarily, the most reasonable.

See you around!

TRiG.

P.S. Quotes from New World Translation. Use made of their footnotes and cross-references.

In response to which, two points:

1. I didn't come up with it.
2. My point was rather a figure of speech in any case, pointing out that while *obviously* it was not Della who actually came up with the name "Death Threat Della", it WAS her who made the death threat, and it's her that's called Della. Hence it could be said that the name was her responsibility, if not her actual creation.

Della's persistent refusal to take any responsibility for her actions (or even admit, in some cases, to have even done things at all, even when she can be proven to have done) is one of the things I and others find most contemptible and pathetic about her.

SoRB

And here's another thought. What if the gods of the nations did exist, as entities, but not as 'real' gods? That is, there was some powerful spiritual being directing the activities of a group of people (worshippers) by means of priests and prophets. But he wasn't who he said he was. He wasn't really Lord of the Sea, or Creator of the World, or whatever else he claimed to be. He was just some small fry on the spiritual plain telling lies about himself to manipulate people on the lower physical plain. What do you think demons do to amuse themselves?

So these gods are really there to be worshipped, but nonetheless, Jehovah (Yahweh, whatever) is still the one true God. Not polytheism now, is it?

The bit I really like about this theory is the thought that the demon who used to dress up as the Bael of Peor is now masquerading as Our Lady of Lourdes.

TRiG.

I've had very little interaction with Della, really. A couple of very brief and polite exchanges on the God thread, many many moons ago.

I did once trawl through some of the conversations around *that time*, but I couldn't pretend to having a full understanding of the events. It was rather depressing, really.

TRiG.

I quite like that theory, something similar to the lines I've thought along in the past!!!

Aye. It's rather fun, isn't it? And it answers all Hoo's points.

(Hoo is so much easier to type than SoRB, isn't it? Though my own moniker is hardly the simplest.)

TRiG.

TRiG, you seem very interested in digging up old dirt on this thread - why is that?

The nickname Death Thread Della was put to bed several months ago - nobody has mentioned it recently anywhere, as far as I know.

az

<>

What is this "spiritual plain" of which you speak?

Noggin

A rather vague theory, useing terminology I'm not used to, myself. What I meant was a being without a physical body. Yes, I could have phrased it better.

TRiG.

Very interested? No. I just disagreed with what SoRB had said. Or what I thought he'd said. I don't think it'll disturb a hornet's nest. I certainly hope not.

And, as you said to me another time, the thread wasn't dead, merely sleaping.

TRiG.

<>

This has always fascinated me. I've never met anybody who could explain to me what they mean by this, or even offer anything that would suggest that *they* had any clear idea what they meant.

In the absence of a body that interacts with the physical what would this being be or do?

Noggin

"what would this being be or do?"

Do.

Be.

Do.

Be.

Do.

A dooby dooby.

SoRB

Actually, that would be Frank Sinatra . . . doobee-doobee-dooooo.


az