on the nature of analog computing
I recently had a discussion about analog computing with someone who works actively on hybrid analog-digital systems at the integrated circuit level. My proposal was that there seems to be, based on historical accounts and reflection, two differing views on “analog”: 1) analog reflecting the continuous or discrete character of magnitude of a variable, and 2) isomorphism indicated by construing analog to be associated closely with analogy. To take one example which can serve for discussion: Are Minecraft circuits analog, digital, or both? It depends on how we define “analog” and where we focus (on the issue of representation or magnitude). For example, redstone circuits could be viewed as analog computing in the sense that the circuits are analogous to electronic circuits containing gates such as and, or, xor, etc. And yet, at the bottom of the vast hierarchy of translation, we have Minecraft servers and clients working on top of a digital substrate. In the mid 90s, I bought a Nord Lead for my synthesizer collection, and Nord uses “virtual analog” to characterize their lineup (an analog front end and a digital back end): http://www.nordkeyboards.com/products/nord-lead-2x My view is that the issue of magnitude is a side-effect of “analog as analogy and, thus, isomorphism", and thus not primary. Tangible objects when juxtaposed and configured together to form physical analogies happen to be continuous simply because reality and our physiology is continuous, and we employ real objects (at least in the mind) when forming analogies. This view may need tweaking, but it seems as though the knowledge of such things is present in this forum. What are the thoughts on this? Is this an ongoing point of debate among historians? -paul Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
Charles Care's argument in his book, Technology for Modelling (Springer, 2010) and "Early Computational Modelling: Physical Models, Electrical Analogies and Analogue Computers" (in Ways of Thinking, Ways of Seeing, ed. Bissell and Dillon, 2012) is essentially that the 'analogue' referred to the instantiation of an analogy until engineers, in need of a term to describe continuous vs discrete signals, co-opted it, which then made it an antonym of 'digital'. Attention was thus fixated on two opposed kinds of hardware rather than on "the continuity of practice" (i.e. modelling) which they shared. (Did not Newell's and Simon's symbol-system hypothesis highlight the analogical character of digital computing?) Terminology remained fluid long enough for the resulting confusion to be reflected in the 1950 Macy Conference, for which see Claus Pias' edition. Have there been any responses to Care's argument? Yours, WM On 07/11/2014 15:22, Paul Fishwick wrote:
I recently had a discussion about analog computing with someone who works actively on hybrid analog-digital systems at the integrated circuit level. My proposal was that there seems to be, based on historical accounts and reflection, two differing views on “analog”: 1) analog reflecting the continuous or discrete character of magnitude of a variable, and 2) isomorphism indicated by construing analog to be associated closely with analogy.
To take one example which can serve for discussion: Are Minecraft circuits analog, digital, or both? It depends on how we define “analog” and where we focus (on the issue of representation or magnitude). For example, redstone circuits could be viewed as analog computing in the sense that the circuits are analogous to electronic circuits containing gates such as and, or, xor, etc. And yet, at the bottom of the vast hierarchy of translation, we have Minecraft servers and clients working on top of a digital substrate. In the mid 90s, I bought a Nord Lead for my synthesizer collection, and Nord uses “virtual analog” to characterize their lineup (an analog front end and a digital back end):
http://www.nordkeyboards.com/products/nord-lead-2x
My view is that the issue of magnitude is a side-effect of “analog as analogy and, thus, isomorphism", and thus not primary. Tangible objects when juxtaposed and configured together to form physical analogies happen to be continuous simply because reality and our physiology is continuous, and we employ real objects (at least in the mind) when forming analogies. This view may need tweaking, but it seems as though the knowledge of such things is present in this forum.
What are the thoughts on this? Is this an ongoing point of debate among historians?
-paul
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick <http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog: creative-automata.com <http://creative-automata.com>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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
-- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney
Thanks, Paul, for the fascinating prompt. I'm excited to hear about the literature suggested by Willard, and I particularly like your distinction between analog as what is not discrete and analog as isomorphism (e.g. Douglas Hoftstadter's most recent book). Those interested may also be interested in the media philosopher and sound historian Jonathan Sterne's take on the question, which resonates fairly well with your distinction and Willard's comments on the midcentury timing. If interested, check out this short essay draft Sterne wrote on "analog" <http://culturedigitally.org/2014/05/analog-draftdigitalkeywords/> that I am editing for a forthcoming volume <http://culturedigitally.org/digital-keywords/> (currently under review at Princeton), and that at least one other on this list are contributing to (*head nod toward Bernie*). Sterne develops more extended arguments in his books on the MP3 and sound recording, and I could if asked point to more tangential digital-analog debate in sound studies. Running out the door, Ben petersbenjamin.wordpress.com On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com> wrote:
I recently had a discussion about analog computing with someone who works actively on hybrid analog-digital systems at the integrated circuit level. My proposal was that there seems to be, based on historical accounts and reflection, two differing views on “analog”: 1) analog reflecting the continuous or discrete character of magnitude of a variable, and 2) isomorphism indicated by construing analog to be associated closely with analogy.
To take one example which can serve for discussion: Are Minecraft circuits analog, digital, or both? It depends on how we define “analog” and where we focus (on the issue of representation or magnitude). For example, redstone circuits could be viewed as analog computing in the sense that the circuits are analogous to electronic circuits containing gates such as and, or, xor, etc. And yet, at the bottom of the vast hierarchy of translation, we have Minecraft servers and clients working on top of a digital substrate. In the mid 90s, I bought a Nord Lead for my synthesizer collection, and Nord uses “virtual analog” to characterize their lineup (an analog front end and a digital back end):
http://www.nordkeyboards.com/products/nord-lead-2x
My view is that the issue of magnitude is a side-effect of “analog as analogy and, thus, isomorphism", and thus not primary. Tangible objects when juxtaposed and configured together to form physical analogies happen to be continuous simply because reality and our physiology is continuous, and we employ real objects (at least in the mind) when forming analogies. This view may need tweaking, but it seems as though the knowledge of such things is present in this forum.
What are the thoughts on this? Is this an ongoing point of debate among historians?
-paul
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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
@Willard: Care’s argument seems compelling and your characterization feels accurate to me. The term “analog”, unfortunately, has transformed into the opposite of digital. Your “continuity of practice” (modelling) seems more relevant and enriching. One of the side of effects of our current condition in computer science, is that the analog is ignored in CS education. History also tends to be ignored, which is a related and more acute problem. @Ben: I enjoyed reading Sterne’s essay. I especially like the point made in the last paragraph: “technology is a part of the domain of human existence, not something outside it.” This is as true today as it was when we first fashioned sticks out of branches and used bones for information (e.g., Ishango bone). A significant issue is that computing is taught and generally viewed as something happening in a box. If we can learn from the mathematicians, computing can be viewed as an intensely human activity similar to how we can view the world through the lens of set theory. This issue, I believe, is related to the analog computing discussion since it is a short transition from the analog to seeing computing everywhere. If we limit our understanding of computing to the digital, it is quite literally difficult to leap out of the box. -p On Nov 7, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Ben Peters <bjpeters@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Paul, for the fascinating prompt.
I'm excited to hear about the literature suggested by Willard, and I particularly like your distinction between analog as what is not discrete and analog as isomorphism (e.g. Douglas Hoftstadter's most recent book). Those interested may also be interested in the media philosopher and sound historian Jonathan Sterne's take on the question, which resonates fairly well with your distinction and Willard's comments on the midcentury timing.
If interested, check out this short essay draft Sterne wrote on "analog" that I am editing for a forthcoming volume (currently under review at Princeton), and that at least one other on this list are contributing to (*head nod toward Bernie*). Sterne develops more extended arguments in his books on the MP3 and sound recording, and I could if asked point to more tangential digital-analog debate in sound studies.
Running out the door,
Ben
petersbenjamin.wordpress.com
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com> wrote: I recently had a discussion about analog computing with someone who works actively on hybrid analog-digital systems at the integrated circuit level. My proposal was that there seems to be, based on historical accounts and reflection, two differing views on “analog”: 1) analog reflecting the continuous or discrete character of magnitude of a variable, and 2) isomorphism indicated by construing analog to be associated closely with analogy.
To take one example which can serve for discussion: Are Minecraft circuits analog, digital, or both? It depends on how we define “analog” and where we focus (on the issue of representation or magnitude). For example, redstone circuits could be viewed as analog computing in the sense that the circuits are analogous to electronic circuits containing gates such as and, or, xor, etc. And yet, at the bottom of the vast hierarchy of translation, we have Minecraft servers and clients working on top of a digital substrate. In the mid 90s, I bought a Nord Lead for my synthesizer collection, and Nord uses “virtual analog” to characterize their lineup (an analog front end and a digital back end):
http://www.nordkeyboards.com/products/nord-lead-2x
My view is that the issue of magnitude is a side-effect of “analog as analogy and, thus, isomorphism", and thus not primary. Tangible objects when juxtaposed and configured together to form physical analogies happen to be continuous simply because reality and our physiology is continuous, and we employ real objects (at least in the mind) when forming analogies. This view may need tweaking, but it seems as though the knowledge of such things is present in this forum.
What are the thoughts on this? Is this an ongoing point of debate among historians?
-paul
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
The initial question, about the use of the concept 'analog', puts me in mind of a book recently published by Bernd Ullmann, "Analog Computing". I haven't had an opportunity to finish reading it but I do recall Bernd offering the two concepts not as an either/or choice but as alternative perspectives. I've visited Bernd in Bad Schwalbach, and his collection of analog (by circuit construction) computers is impressive to the point of overwhelming. And they work! -- Ian On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com> wrote:
@Willard: Care’s argument seems compelling and your characterization feels accurate to me. The term “analog”, unfortunately, has transformed into the opposite of digital. Your “continuity of practice” (modelling) seems more relevant and enriching. One of the side of effects of our current condition in computer science, is that the analog is ignored in CS education. History also tends to be ignored, which is a related and more acute problem.
@Ben: I enjoyed reading Sterne’s essay. I especially like the point made in the last paragraph: “technology is a part of the domain of human existence, not something outside it.” This is as true today as it was when we first fashioned sticks out of branches and used bones for information (e.g., Ishango bone).
A significant issue is that computing is taught and generally viewed as something happening in a box. If we can learn from the mathematicians, computing can be viewed as an intensely human activity similar to how we can view the world through the lens of set theory. This issue, I believe, is related to the analog computing discussion since it is a short transition from the analog to seeing computing everywhere. If we limit our understanding of computing to the digital, it is quite literally difficult to leap out of the box.
-p
On Nov 7, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Ben Peters <bjpeters@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Paul, for the fascinating prompt.
I'm excited to hear about the literature suggested by Willard, and I particularly like your distinction between analog as what is not discrete and analog as isomorphism (e.g. Douglas Hoftstadter's most recent book). Those interested may also be interested in the media philosopher and sound historian Jonathan Sterne's take on the question, which resonates fairly well with your distinction and Willard's comments on the midcentury timing.
If interested, check out this short essay draft Sterne wrote on "analog" <http://culturedigitally.org/2014/05/analog-draftdigitalkeywords/> that I am editing for a forthcoming volume <http://culturedigitally.org/digital-keywords/> (currently under review at Princeton), and that at least one other on this list are contributing to (*head nod toward Bernie*). Sterne develops more extended arguments in his books on the MP3 and sound recording, and I could if asked point to more tangential digital-analog debate in sound studies.
Running out the door,
Ben
petersbenjamin.wordpress.com
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com> wrote:
I recently had a discussion about analog computing with someone who works actively on hybrid analog-digital systems at the integrated circuit level. My proposal was that there seems to be, based on historical accounts and reflection, two differing views on “analog”: 1) analog reflecting the continuous or discrete character of magnitude of a variable, and 2) isomorphism indicated by construing analog to be associated closely with analogy.
To take one example which can serve for discussion: Are Minecraft circuits analog, digital, or both? It depends on how we define “analog” and where we focus (on the issue of representation or magnitude). For example, redstone circuits could be viewed as analog computing in the sense that the circuits are analogous to electronic circuits containing gates such as and, or, xor, etc. And yet, at the bottom of the vast hierarchy of translation, we have Minecraft servers and clients working on top of a digital substrate. In the mid 90s, I bought a Nord Lead for my synthesizer collection, and Nord uses “virtual analog” to characterize their lineup (an analog front end and a digital back end):
http://www.nordkeyboards.com/products/nord-lead-2x
My view is that the issue of magnitude is a side-effect of “analog as analogy and, thus, isomorphism", and thus not primary. Tangible objects when juxtaposed and configured together to form physical analogies happen to be continuous simply because reality and our physiology is continuous, and we employ real objects (at least in the mind) when forming analogies. This view may need tweaking, but it seems as though the knowledge of such things is present in this forum.
What are the thoughts on this? Is this an ongoing point of debate among historians?
-paul
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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
-- Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS Ph.D. Candidate The Information School University of Washington An optimist sees a glass half full. A pessimist sees it half empty. An engineer sees it twice as large as it needs to be.
participants (4)
-
Ben Peters -
Ian S. King -
Paul Fishwick -
Willard McCarty