82,900
edits
Talk:Reg tech: Difference between revisions
→Digitisation of information: a history
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Digitisation of information: a history=== | ===Digitisation of information: a history=== | ||
In his fabulous 1970s television series [[Connections]], {{author|James Burke}} traced the origins of the modern computer back to the [[Jacquard loom]], the revolutionary silk-weaving machine Joseph Marie Jacquard perfected in 1804. Jacquard used removable punch-cards to “program” the weaving process, in much the same way a self-playing piano reads a punched card to pay a tune. | In his fabulous 1970s television series ''[[Connections]]'', {{author|James Burke}} traced the origins of the modern computer back to the [[Jacquard loom]], the revolutionary silk-weaving machine Joseph Marie Jacquard perfected in 1804. Jacquard used removable punch-cards to “program” the weaving process, in much the same way a self-playing piano reads a punched card to pay a tune. | ||
Jacquard’s loom was an important waystation in the development of programmability and plasticity of machines. For the first time, one could change a | To Burke’s telling of it, Jacquard’s loom was an important waystation in the development of programmability and plasticity of machines. For the first time, one could change what a machine made without having to physically re-engineer the machine itself. | ||
Jacquard’s loom was | Jacquard’s loom was “digitally programmable” in the sense that it reliably carried out specific actions by reference to preconfigured instructions, encoded on card, without human intervention. | ||
We might be tempted to call the data on these cards “symbols”, but they are not: a symbol is a representation of something ''else''. It requires interpretation — an imaginative connection, mate in the reader’s brain, between the symbol and the thing it represents. But in “reading” the punched card, Jacquard’s loom did not interpret anything. The cards contained unambiguous, binary instructions to carry out specific functions — namely to create the intricate oriental patterns so sought after in the salons of haute couture in 19th century Paris. | |||
Jacquard’s machine offered more than just flexibility. It separated the information comprising a given | Jacquard’s machine offered more than just flexibility. It separated the information comprising a given textile weave from the machine that made it. This information was imprinted on the cards. Information — binary data needing no intelligence, interpretation or skill to process — was suddenly portable. Jacquard could send instructions for his latest weave from Paris to Lyon by popping a box of cards on one of those new french mail coaches,<ref>''Je suis obligé, la Wikipèdia''.</ref> without having to transport a bloody great automated loom down there with it. | ||
So, to the stages of computerisation of human tools. It is a slow process of extracting the instructions from the the basic engineering of the tool — the “[[substrate]]”. | So, to the stages of computerisation of human tools. It is a slow process of extracting the instructions from the the basic engineering of the tool — the “[[substrate]]”. | ||
“A device for reliably carrying out a defined function” is not a bad general definition for a “machine” and there were certainly machines before 1804: the innovation was to abstract the instructions from the basic engineering of the tool. You cannot extract the “instructions” built into the engineering of a scythe (when force is applied, use sharp blade to cut wheat) or a water-wheel blades are set at an angle | “A device for reliably carrying out a defined function” is not a bad general definition for a “machine” and there were certainly machines before 1804: the innovation was to abstract the instructions from the basic engineering of the tool. You cannot extract the “instructions” built into the engineering of a scythe (when force is applied, use sharp blade to cut wheat) or a water-wheel (blades are set at an angle so that, when wind blows or water flows, the blade is pushe sideways, it turns a crank and rotates the wheel. | ||
A water-wheel will work without human intervention but, as long as the water keeps flowing, won’t stop. This embedded natural coding: “<when water pressure is applied here, rotate this way>”. | |||
Before Jacquard’s loom, you couldn’t “reprogramme” a machine without reengineering it. You could beat a sword into a ploughshare, but then it would be a ploughshare and not a sword. | |||
Now compared to a MacBook hooked up to a 3D printer, a [[Jacquard loom]] wasn’t very plastic: you could change patterns easily enough but whatever instructions you fed into it, all it would spit out was fabric. | |||
But the instructions are embedded in the material form — the substrate — of the card. This is an input, but the machine cannot commit it to memory. In a way it can: in the immediate output, which is a function of the input, but this data flows uncaptured through the machine. Analog input, analog output. | |||
===Two kinds of plasticity=== | |||
Computer – a lot of flexibility; limited dependence on physical engineering. Much more “plastic”, but not infinite. A great deal of change in outcome possible without changing engineering. | Computer – a lot of flexibility; limited dependence on physical engineering. Much more “plastic”, but not infinite. A great deal of change in outcome possible without changing engineering. | ||
Two kinds of plasticity here though: | Two kinds of plasticity here though: | ||
*'''Physical''': You still need to hook up a peripheral to produce sound, music, printed paper though some of that is integrated, and the degree of engineering in those peripherals is the same (and as unplastic) though with 3d printers we are getting close to the conceivable spectrum here. Almost all engineering can be achieved by code. | |||
Digital: the power and flexibility of the computer is its ability to store, manipulate and augment code – it has "memory". (Here’s a point though: unlike human memory, computer “memory” is not symbolic. It simply stores digits without assigning then any symbolic meaning. It therefore neither requires nor allows a symbolic narrative — it generates no meaning out of its stored code. | *'''Digital''': the power and flexibility of the computer is its ability to store, manipulate and augment code – it has "memory". (Here’s a point though: unlike human memory, computer “memory” is not symbolic. It simply stores digits without assigning then any symbolic meaning. It therefore neither requires nor allows a symbolic narrative — it generates no ''meaning'' out of its stored code. | ||
A Jacquard loom | ===Bad anthropomorphic metaphors=== | ||
But | A Jacquard loom has no writable “memory”. It is a just-in-time production. It can directly translate the card’s instructions into its machinery in an unplastic way, but it can’t do anything else with the code. It can’t transform the instructions: they are hard-coded into the substrate of the punch card. They can’t be separated from it. The loom doesn’t copy or store this information. It just ingests it, mechanically processes it, and instantly forgets it, as soon as the card moves on. If the punch card fails or tears, the machine won't work. The card ''is'' the code. | ||
Now that would be the trick: if a machine could take the information, in an abstract sense, off the card, and copy it onto an internal storage system then you have separated the pure code from its physical articulation. | |||
But “memory” is, in any case, a bad metaphor, implying as it does a conceptualisation of the past, present, and future. Like the Jacquard loom, a computer is stuck forever in the moment. | |||
'''Computer code has no tense'''. | |||
===More about substrates. A whole other level=== | |||
But the transition from encoding in engineering to encoding on punch cards didn’t cause the information explosion: it happened in 1804. It took a further separating of information from substrate for that: the abstract digital information from its he physical medium in which the code is embedded to interact with the physical world. | |||
Now that would be the trick: if a machine could take the information, in an abstract sense, ''off'' the card, and copy it onto an internal storage system then you have separated the pure code from its physical articulation. | |||
Thus | Thus | ||
(a) the machine wouldn't thereafter need the card – it would have taken what it needs from it, copied it and stored it separately, and | (a) the machine wouldn't thereafter need the card – it would have taken what it needs from it, copied it and stored it separately, and | ||
(b) having copied it once, the machine could copy it again, or you have the ability to replicate, splice, augment it, or adjust it. The machine can manipulate the code. The information on the card can contain contain instructions to overwrite itself. | (b) having copied it once, the machine could copy it again, or you have the ability to replicate, splice, augment it, or adjust it. The machine ''itself'' can manipulate the code. The information on the card can contain contain instructions to overwrite itself. | ||
Note again: read, interpret, memory – these are poor metaphors because they humanise a process that is nothing like the human activity of reading, interpreting or remembering. Code processing is a far more mechanical and less complex undertaking than real reading, interpretation or memory. | Note again: read, interpret, memory – these are poor metaphors because they humanise a process that is nothing like the human activity of reading, interpreting or remembering. Code processing is a far more mechanical and less complex undertaking than real reading, interpretation or memory. | ||
A machine recognises patterns in code, and while it can associate other values with those patterns, it assigns them no “meaning”. Computers can’t do metaphor. | A machine recognises patterns in code, and while it can associate other values with those patterns, it assigns them no “meaning”. | ||
'''Computers can’t do metaphor'''. | |||
The manipulation of that abstract code didn’t happen all at once. In the 1940s memory and processing power was very expensive so even though machines could replicate code digitally they didn't. It was cheaper to reply on physical memory formats (tape, punched cards, disks). The code replication grew from the inside out. Machine outputs were all physical. But machines began to be sequenced into networks. Communication of data between machines became a priority. Once machines could output abstract code (rather than by writing to disk) it was only a matter of time. | The manipulation of that abstract code didn’t happen all at once. In the 1940s memory and processing power was very expensive so even though machines could replicate code digitally they didn't. It was cheaper to reply on physical memory formats (tape, punched cards, disks). The code replication grew from the inside out. Machine outputs were all physical. But machines began to be sequenced into networks. Communication of data between machines became a priority. Once machines could output abstract code (rather than by writing to disk) it was only a matter of time. | ||