So much good dialogue has taken place today on this topic that I think we should ask Evan to consolidate all of this into a short article that goes into one of the back sections of the Annals or into an article in some media journal. If that works, there are a bunch of other things we could flush out from time to time using this social networking/wisdom of crowds approach. We might even expand Evan's assignment by discussing automation next weekend and then the following weekend cybernetics.
Jim (James) W. Cortada
IBM Institute for Business Value
3001 West Beltline Highway
Madison, WI 53713 USA
jwcorta@us.ibm.com
608-270-4462
Thomas Haigh ---01/31/2009 02:50:21 PM---The title has great retro kitsch value, but I believe that "Giant Brains" popularized a more important phrase. Berkeley defined
From: |
Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org> |
To: |
members@sigcis.org |
Date: |
01/31/09 02:50 PM |
Subject: |
Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" |
The title has great retro kitsch value, but I believe that "Giant Brains" popularized a more important phrase. Berkeley defined the computer as "a machine that handles information, transfers information from one part of the machine to another and has a flexible control over the sequence of its operation." This makes it special because transfers information automatically, doesn't need minute to minute instructions -this makes "a deep break with the past" even though "machines that handle information have existed for more than 200 years." So he situates the as one in a long lineof information handling machines going back to languages as "systems for handling information", nerve cells, cave paintings, books, etc as "physical equipment for handling information." That's the context in which it makes sense to call a computer a giant brain, not because both think but because both handle information.
While Shannon's information theory had obvious relevance for people building digital computers, this is the earliest (1949) expansive framing I'm aware of for the computer as a universal information processing machine. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows of an earlier one, but it's surely the earliest one to reach a mass general audience.
Tom
2009/1/31 Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca>
Hey,
Just did a quick check on JSTOR on the Science Service's The
Science News-letter (what I assume Bernadette Longo refered to). The term
"mechanical brain" is used about three times in the 1930s for some kind
of calculator or control system. First instance in 1930 for a
planetarium's control system (The Science News-Letter, Vol.
17, No. 475 (May 17, 1930), pp. 312-313) and then in 1932 to describe
Bush's Differential Analyzer (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 22, No. 606
(Nov. 19, 1932), p. 320), which is also called a mathematical brain. The
phrase "electronic 'brain'" is used to refer to a computing gunsight in
1944 (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 21 (Nov. 18, 1944), p. 326)
Note that for example the press release by Harvard in 1944 for the
IBM ASCC/Harvard Mark I refers to it as a "super-brain." (p. 124, Cohen,
_Howard Aiken: Portrait of a computer pioneer_) So I think it is safe to
say that the use of the word/analogy of brain to describe a computer was
popular before Berkeley.
The exact phrase "giant brain" is apparently not used anywhere in
JSTOR's database (which is a number of scientific and other journals)
before 1950 to describe machines...
I did a quick check of the NY Times and found an article from 1947
with the following title "NEW GIANT 'BRAIN' DOES WIZARD WORK; Bureau of
Standards Says It Can Solve Vast Mathematical Problems in a Few Minutes"
August 25, 1947, Monday Page 19, 602 words. About the Bureau of Standards
plans for machines,"giant "electronic brains"" refered to, so the title
may be an abreviation of that. It is based off a U.P. newswire. However
this is the only pre-1949 reference, so it hardly suggests it is a popular
description.
Refering to early computers as giant brains is a natural way to
describe them given their size and previous practice and so the phrase
was probably coined more than once (like many computer algorithms that
have been invented multiple times). I suspect if you did a search of all
searchable newspapers and other available sources you would find a few
more instances of the phrase "giant brain" however it does seem to me
like Berkeley popularized the description.
--
Yours Truly,
Allan Olley
http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Bernadette Longo wrote:
> Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous times by
> the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of
> earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette
> Longo
>
> James Cortada wrote:
>>
>> He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was the
>> first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at least
>> the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. based on
>> what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book
>> editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we still
>> have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in the late
>> 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John Diebold
>> did when he used it as the title for a best selling book published in
>> the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from Ford and
>> his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only
>> really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His
>> experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking about the
>> title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with editors,
>> marketing people, and others until you get it right.
>>
>> Jim (James) W. Cortada
>> IBM Institute for Business Value
>> 3001 West Beltline Highway
>> Madison, WI 53713 USA
>> jwcorta@us.ibm.com
>> 608-270-4462
>>
>> Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10
>> AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan
>> Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains"
>> already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or
>> should he get credit for po
>>
>>
>> From: "Evan Koblentz" <evan@snarc.net>
>>
>> To: <members@sigcis.org>
>>
>> Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM
>>
>> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains"
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used
>> it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it?
>> I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes
>> to the right source._______________________________________________
>> This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion
>> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at
>> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your
>> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion
>> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at
>> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your
>> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members