podcast:episodios:35
Diferencias
Muestra las diferencias entre dos versiones de la página.
| Próxima revisión | Revisión previa | ||
| podcast:episodios:35 [2020/11/02 11:11] – creado Joaquín Herrero Pintado | podcast:episodios:35 [2020/11/16 08:42] (actual) – [Otras referencias] Jose Carlos García | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Línea 1: | Línea 1: | ||
| - | ====== Episodio 35 ====== | + | ====== Episodio 35: El software, un parque de abstracciones |
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hoy le daremos vueltas a una palabra que asociamos con la tecnología pero sobre la que se puede arrojar una mirada filosófica: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | “La filosofía no sirve para nada” es un podcast sin pretensiones en el que reflexionaremos sobre el presente. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Participan: José Carlos García @quobit, Juan Antonio Torrero @jatorrero, Sergio Muñoz @smunozroncero, | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ^ Fecha | 2 de noviembre de 2020 | | ||
| + | ^ Participan | José Carlos García [[https:// | ||
| + | ^ Descarga | Puedes descargar todos los episodios en [[https:// | ||
| + | ^ Sintonía | [[http:// | ||
| + | ^ Fotos | [[https:// | ||
| + | ^ Intro | Conversación con Alexa | | ||
| + | ^ Twitter | En [[https:// | ||
| + | ^ Canal Telegram | Puedes seguir la preparación de nuevos episodios suscribiéndote al canal [[https:// | ||
| + | ^ Grupo de opinión | Únete a nuestro grupo de opinión [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | <iframe id=' | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Definiciones ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Software ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | * Se conoce como software al soporte lógico de un sistema informático, | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | * Computer software, or simply software, is a collection of data or **computer instructions** that tell the computer how to work. This is in contrast to physical hardware, from which the system is built and actually performs the work. In computer science and software engineering, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oxford Languages: | ||
| + | * Conjunto de **programas** y rutinas que permiten a la computadora realizar determinadas tareas. Origen: Préstamo del inglés software, compuesto por soft ‘blando’ y ware ‘utensilios, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Diccionario RAE: | ||
| + | * Conjunto de **programas, | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Hardware ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wikipedia Español: | ||
| + | * La palabra hardware en informática se refiere a las partes físicas, tangibles, de un sistema informático, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wikipedia Inglés: | ||
| + | * Computer hardware includes the physical parts of a computer, such as the case,[1] central processing unit (CPU), monitor, mouse, keyboard, computer data storage, graphics card, sound card, speakers and motherboard. **By contrast, software is the set of instructions that can be stored and run by hardware.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Oxford Languages: | ||
| + | * Conjunto de elementos físicos o materiales que constituyen una computadora o un sistema informático. Origen: Préstamo del inglés hardware, compuesto por hard ‘duro’ y ware, elemento que entra en la formación de muchos términos ingleses con el valor de ‘utensilio, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Diccionario RAE: | ||
| + | * (Informática) equipo (‖ conjunto de aparatos de una computadora). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | CUESTIÓN: ¿LOS ESTADOS ELECTRÓNICOS SON HARDWARE O SOFTWARE? (Esta cuestión es paralela a la de los " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Estatuto filosófico del software ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Basado en el capítulo 12 (" | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Book Review: A Philosophy of Software Design | Johz Blog | ||
| + | https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | INTRODUCCIÓN DEL CAPÍTULO | ||
| + | |||
| + | Traditional philosophical problems in ontology, that is, problems concern- | ||
| + | ing what kinds of things there are, and how to classify certain individual | ||
| + | things, rarely hold more than academic interest. The outcomes of de- | ||
| + | bates over the ontological status of bare particulars, | ||
| + | make headline news or affect the lives of nonphilosophers very much. Of | ||
| + | course, a decision to make an ontological commitment often does affect | ||
| + | how we do science, as when the conjecture that more than 90 percent of | ||
| + | the universe is composed of unobserved “dark” matter prompts lengthy | ||
| + | and risky experiments to capture a fleeting glimpse of a neutrino. Still, | ||
| + | although the outcomes of these experiments hold enormous implications | ||
| + | for cosmology, they will not affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary people | ||
| + | whose work involves business, finance, trade, or technology. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, the ontological status of computer software has emerged | ||
| + | as an issue that may hold interest both for academic philosophers and | ||
| + | for those involved in the formation of public policy for the international | ||
| + | marketplace. As reported in a recent issue of Scientific American} the | ||
| + | apparent dual nature of software has sparked a debate involving free | ||
| + | speech and the applicability of the International Traffic in Arms Regu- | ||
| + | lations. A related controversy concerning policy governing intellectual | ||
| + | property rights also appears to have its roots in a perceived dual nature | ||
| + | of software. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The aim of this chapter is not to propose solutions to these debates, | ||
| + | but to bring to light and analyze the philosophical assumptions under- | ||
| + | lying them. I will describe the prima facie reasons for upholding soft- | ||
| + | ware’s duality, along with the ontological implications. Along the way, | ||
| + | I will expose a misconception, | ||
| + | out of text. I will also show how this view is related to the view, already | ||
| + | considered in chapter 9, that computer science is merely a branch of pure | ||
| + | mathematics. By describing the actual practice and infrastructure surrounding software creation today, I will support a view of software as a | ||
| + | concrete abstraction, | ||
| + | ontological point of view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== La doble naturaleza del software ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The medium of an algorithm’s description might be a natural language like English, if it is being described informally, or it might be an artificial language like C++ or Java. In the latter case, the algorithm is encoded in the text of a computer programming language. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[https:// | ||
| + | ply a product of every American’s right to free speech. But as magnetic representations of the same software on a different medium, it qualified as part of a potentially dangerous mechanism and a threat to national security.**" | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is a philosophically interesting aspect of this controversy, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The text/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | In [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | From a philosophical point of view the assertion raises two obvious questions: | ||
| + | - How can a machine be constructed out of text? | ||
| + | - How can software, which is constructed using statements written in a formal programming language, be considered a machine‘? | ||
| + | |||
| + | When we distinguish between physical and virtual machines, we see that the first question is not puzzling. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round tip 60%> | ||
| + | The nature of software’s duality can be illuminated by understanding the distinction between software’s **medium of description** (formal language) and its **medium of execution** (circuits and semiconducting elements). | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Strictly speaking, when you look at printed program text [...] what you “see” is an **abstraction**. The software itself, which causes the machine to execute the computational process, is constructed not out of text, but out of electron charges, magnetic fields, pulses of light, and so on, which are not abstractions, | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round tip 60%> | ||
| + | The idea that software is a machine built from text gives rise to the notion that **software is some kind of mysterious entity which is abstract and which possesses causal power.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nota: El vendedor de un NewBrain en una tienda especializada se sorprendía de la capacidad de encender y apagar una pantalla incorporada en el ordenador con tan solo una instrucción de software: OPEN #0,3 | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cuando surge la cuestión filosófica entre si el software es un sistemas abstracto o uno causal la respuesta no debería ser combinar las categorías de texto y mecanismo en una categoría aún más desconcertante que admita ambos. [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The incalculable power and utility of tools like compilers, assemblers, and link-loaders masks the fundamental fact that **to program a machine is to put its memory into a state which when presented as input to circuits will produce more state of a desired kind**. The various levels of formal language that we use today to describe these states are abstract tools for achieving this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round tip 60%> | ||
| + | The remarkable thing about software is not that it is a machine whose medium of construction is text, but that a textual description of a piece of software is involved in its own creation as states of memory elements. The development over time of tools many programmers take for granted is the reason we can do this relatively easily. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Formal languages are indispensable abstractions for thinking about software, but there is no reason to think that software is a machine made of text.** | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Software como una abstracción concreta ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The particle and wave characterizations of light were both physical characterizations (albeit ones which nineteenth-century classical mechanics had come to place “in logical opposition to each other.” ) | ||
| + | |||
| + | By contrast, the duality inherent in a “concrete abstraction” crosses metaphysical categories, and deserves at least as serious philosophical scrutiny as the Copenhagen interpretation. While computer scientists often enthusiastically embrace this duality, a metaphysician will view it as a puzzle to be explained. **How can something, namely a computer program, be at once concrete and abstract? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Prólogo del libro **Concrete Abstractions: | ||
| + | |||
| + | //A primera vista, el título de este libro (Abstracciones concretas: Introducción a la informática) es un oxímoron. Después de todo, el término abstracción se refiere a una idea o descripción general, divorciada de los objetos físicos reales. Por otro lado, algo es concreto cuando se trata de un objeto en particular, tal vez algo que puedas manipular con las manos y mirar con los ojos. Sin embargo, a menudo se trata de abstracciones concretas. Considere, por ejemplo, un procesador de textos. Cuando usa un procesador de texto, probablemente piense que realmente ha ingresado un documento en la computadora y que la computadora es una máquina que manipula físicamente las palabras en el documento. Pero en realidad, cuando " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== El estatus ontológico de las abstracciones concretas ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Think of the methodological framework employed by philosophers to approach the mind/body problem: the taxonomy of solutions in terms of monism and dualism provides a useful metaphor, if not an entirely appropriate language, for describing programs as concrete abstractions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Monismo ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Afirma que la dualidad es falsa, que el objeto solo es A o B pero no ambas cosas | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ejemplos de monismo son el materialismo y el idealismo. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Variedades de monismo: | ||
| + | - Teoría del doble aspecto (afirma que la dualidad es solo aparente, el objeto se puede ver desde el aspecto A o desde el aspecto B pero el objeto no es ni A ni B) | ||
| + | - Reduccionismo (uno de los aspectos es verdadero y otro falso: el objeto es A, y desde A se puede explicar que se pueda ver como B) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Dualismo ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Afirma que tanto A como B son sustancias físicas y existen realmente. Hay objetos que son/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Variedades de dualismo: | ||
| + | - Interaccionismo dualista: hay una relación causal entre A y B (entre lo físico y lo mental, por ejemplo) | ||
| + | - Epifenomenalismo: | ||
| + | - Armonía preestablecida: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Armonía pre-establecida ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Esta última, sin embargo, es la que mejor explica el estatuto del software como un texto escrito en un lenguaje formal (software) y que tiene efectos causales en los impulsos eléctricos que suceden en otro mundo (hardware) debido a una correlación explícitamente diseñada por ingenieros y programadores. Al compilar y linkar un programa se hace ese paso entre dos mundos ontológicamente distintos: en el programa solo hay letras y números y en el hardware solo hay impulsos eléctricos pero ambos mundos han sido diseñados exprofeso para correlar entre ellos y se ha fabricado una causalidad que puede ir del software al hardware (ingeniería) o del hardware al software (ingeniería inversa) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lo que demuestra esto es que comprender la dualidad hardware/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Al final Colburn hace una reflexión sobre que ninguna idea filosófica se queda antigua. Son armas conceptuales que pueden servir para explicar el presente que tenemos o quizás sirvan para explicar otros presentes que vendrán, pero nunca se debe descartar ninguna idea. Un ejemplo de esto es el concepto de " | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Referencias ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | 1. Wallich, “Cracking the U.S. Code.” | ||
| + | 2. Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest, Introduction to Algorithms, 831-836. | ||
| + | 3. Davis, Samuelson, Kapor, and Reichman, “A New View of Intellectual Property and Software, | ||
| + | 4. Fetzer, “Program Verification: | ||
| + | 5. Hailperin, Kaiser, and Knight, Concrete Abstractions: | ||
| + | duction to Computer Science. I | ||
| + | 6. Reichenbach, | ||
| + | 7. Hanson, “Philosophical Implications of Quantum Mechanics, | ||
| + | 8. Shaffer, “Mind-Body Problem.” | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Otras referencias ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * Algunas de las múltiples referencias de "otro nivel de abstracción" | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Computer Science Crash Course playlist: https:// | ||
| + | * Registros y RAM: https:// | ||
| + | * Cómo calculan los ordenadores (la UAL): https:// | ||
| + | * Instrucciones y programas: https:// | ||
| + | * Los primeros lenguajes de programación: | ||
| + | * Programación básica: enunciados y funciones: https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
podcast/episodios/35.1604315506.txt.gz · Última modificación: por Joaquín Herrero Pintado
