..then all you're saying is you have not seen a square circle. So what? — InPitzotl

It is not as simple as that.

The most significant difference between analogue device and computer is that, the computers have microprocessors equipped in. The processors have the pre-programmed instructions for processing the data. So, it is flexible and versatile. Computers can be interfaced with other specially designed interfaces to perform other myriad of functions too.

Analogue devices don't have the microprocessors in them. They cannot process any data. They are purely mechanical in their design and structure, and cannot perform even 1% of what the modern digital computers can. They are data monitoring devices or receivers / players at best.

The biggest confusion here is your weird claim that to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer, followed by denying that what everyone else calls an analog computer is an analog computer. If that's the confusion you're talking about, I have another idea of how to resolve it. — InPitzotl

What microprocessor did TR-10 have? Which programming languages does it operate on?
And what is the O/S for the TR-10?

The most significant difference between analogue device and computer — Corvus

You're begging the question here.

the computers have microprocessors equipped in. — Corvus

Not all of them.

What microprocessor did TR-10 have? — Corvus

None. The TR-10 includes interchangeable plug-in components including coefficient setting potentiometers, integrator networks, function switches, comparators, function generators, reference panels, tie point panels, multipliers, and operational amplifiers, as described in the operations manual.

Is there a point to this game or are you just going to indefinitely annoy me? You mentioned something in just the last post about confusion. Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you.

The Tr-10 analogue "computer". Computes a continous input to give a continuous output. Just like the brain. Without bits and bites. Only with current. Like in the brain. The difference being that the currents in our brain are not pulled through by voltage sources on ends of wires.

None. The TR-10 includes interchangeable plug-in components including coefficient setting potentiometers, integrator networks, function switches, comparators, function generators, reference panels, tie point panels, multipliers, and operational amplifiers, as described in the operations manual.

Is there a point to this game or are you just going to indefinitely annoy me? You mentioned something in just the last post about confusion. Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you. — InPitzotl

I am just trying to clarify the points that you have been throwing at me. No emotions here.

Computers must have,

the microprocessor
input and out device
storage device for very minimum for HW.

For SW, it must have the OS for the central instruction processing and ROM (booting)

And computers must be able to process data, and take new instructions via the programming languages.

Now which analogue device is equipped with above components and capabilities?

Is there a point to this game or are you just going to indefinitely annoy me? — InPitzotl

Yes. You are wrong. The brain IS an analogue computer.

Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you. — InPitzotl

My point is that rather than accepting the concepts and ideas from the Wiki or other internet sites just because they have typed up and uploaded unto there, but why not try come to the knowledge by discussing and arguing for the clearer concepts and conclusion with the philosophical and logical discourse.

The meanings and concepts reveal in this process seem far clearer and logical than some unknown bloke written out and put them on the net. This is the whole point of philosophy. We don't take anything prima facie. We discuss and debate till the truths emerge from the pure reason.

Computers must have, — Corvus

The PDP-11 did not have a microprocessor.

For SW, it must have the OS for the central instruction processing and ROM (booting) — Corvus

Nope. The OS is absolutely unnecessary. Usually this is referred to as bare metal.

And computers must be able to process data, and take new instructions via the programming languages. — Corvus

Also unnecessary. I recall using the hex keypad to punch machine code into the 6800. Yeah, I did actually write a program first, but I did the compiling, not the 6800.

Now which analogue device is equipped with above components and capabilities? — Corvus

Irrelevant. This is yet another round of barking out requirements that are absolutely not requirements, then pretending you have a gotcha.

My point is that rather than accepting the concepts and ideas from the Wiki or other internet sites just because they have typed up and uploaded unto there, — Corvus

Philosophy forum is an internet site, you are a "they", and I don't accept your ideas just because you typed it up here.

but why not try come to the knowledge by discussing and arguing for the clearer concepts and conclusion with the philosophical and logical discourse. — Corvus

If you are after "clearer concepts", let's start with what's so unclear about calling the TR-10 an analog computer.

The meanings and concepts reveal in this process seem far clearer and logical than some unknown bloke written out and put them on the net. — Corvus

You're giving me the wrong lecture. I'm not buying what some unknown bloke (Corvus) wrote out and put them on the net (philosophy forum). Why should I trust you?

@InPitzotl

But do you think the brain is an analogue unit?

But do you think the brain is an analogue unit? — Prishon

The brain is the brain. It's probably not useful to think of the brain as a digital computer or as an analog computer.

You're giving me the wrong lecture. I'm not buying what some unknown bloke (Corvus) wrote out and put them on the net (philosophy forum). Why should I trust you? — InPitzotl

I don't expect you trust me. Never said that.
It is a principle in philosophical discussion (finding truths via dialectic discussion and let the reason reveal). If one reject that, then there is no point in discussion.

I don't expect you trust me. Never said that. — Corvus

You're lecturing me, virtually calling me a clueless wiki-zombie, despite my explicitly giving you my criteria for rejecting your definitions. Which still apply.

It is a principle in philosophical dIscussion. If one reject that, then there is no point. — Corvus

But you're not doing any philosophy here. You were directly asked what was so confusing about calling the TR-10 an analog computer. Instead of replying, and giving an argument, you chose to lecture me on how trusting random blokes on the internet yada yada yada, yada yada yada. In other words, you went on a tirade, which is not an argument.

If you're serious about clearer concepts, get to it. If you're just going to lecture me on how mindless you think I am, I've got more important things to do than tease your fantasies of me. You don't accomplish anything meaningful by patronizing me.

I have my points, which are obviously different from yours. I was just responding to your raised points. To be honest, I didn't know who you were until you joined the discussion and kept engaging with us. Why do you see it as lecturing?

But you're not doing any philosophy here. You were directly asked what was so confusing about calling the TR-10 an analog computer. Instead of replying, and giving an argument, you chose to lecture me on how trusting random blokes on the internet yada yada yada, yada yada yada. In other words, you went on a tirade, which is not an argument. — InPitzotl

I think I have given out the clear reason why analogue devices are not computers with all the necessary conditions for being computer in one of my posts with the HW and SW specs.

The reason that I mentioned about the Wiki and stuff was that your only argument for believing the analogue machines were computers was that you have seen that page in Wiki, and someone's write up on it, and was presenting it as some infallible necessary universal truth rather than telling us your arguments why analogue devices are computers.

Why do you see it as lecturing? — Corvus

How is ranting on the importance of establishing clearer concepts, instead of, oh I don't know, actually trying to do that... not lecturing?

Which leads to the elephant in the room. Why is it so unclear to call the TR-10 an analog computer?

I think I have given out the clear reason why analogue devices are not computers with all the necessary conditions for being computer in one of the posts with the HW and SW specs. — Corvus

Nope. You basically said, all swans have white feathers. That thing has black feathers, so there's no way it's a swan.

Your definition is one of niche and habit; not generalized applicability. If we're going to discuss whether the brain is some form of analog computer, we're probably not going after whether it has a microprocessor in it; and despite your diatribes, philosophy isn't hanging in the balance over whether or not we count the brain as a non-computer because there's no silicon wafers in it. You are lacking all sense of proportion here.

Nope. You basically said, all swans have white feathers. That thing has black feathers, so there's no way it's a swan. — InPitzotl

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about in its specs and SW/OS it uses, but you have not given your replies at all. All you ever then seem doing is just going on about lecturing and Wiki and irrelevant details for the dialectic process.

Your definition is one of niche and habit; not generalized applicability. If we're going to discuss whether the brain is some form of analog computer, we're probably not going after whether it has a microprocessor in it; and despite your diatribes, philosophy isn't hanging in the balance over whether or not we count the brain as a non-computer because there's no silicon wafers in it. You are lacking all sense of proportion here. — InPitzotl

I feel that it is important to clarify the concepts involved in the debate, otherwise you will end up talking about rivers and cakes and mountains, when the topic is human brains and computers.

I feel that it is important to clarify the concepts involved in the debate, — Corvus

That's fair. But so is my analogy.

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about — Corvus

I told you it didn't have a microprocessor.

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about in its specs and SW/OS it uses, but you have not given your replies at all. — Corvus

Not true. I told you a PDP-11 doesn't have a microprocessor, an OS is optional (gave you the term "bare metal"), and told you how I did the compiling for that 6800 I programmed. IOW, I am dismantling your arbitrary criteria.

Incidentally, again, the thread isn't about whether brains have silicon wafers in it. It's not asking whether brains run an operating system. It's not asking whether brains run on software written in programming languages. So all of these are fanciful distractions. There's nothing clarified here about how the brain works, and how it doesn't work, and how that might compare to what we call analog computers and what we call digital computers, to be found in these criteria that don't always apply to the things we call analog computers and digital computers anyway.

Not true. I told you a PDP-11 doesn't have a microprocessor, an OS is optional (gave you the term "bare metal"), and told you how I did the compiling for that 6800 I programmed. IOW, I am dismantling your arbitrary criteria. — InPitzotl

PDP-11 had processor in the form of LSI. PDP stands for Programmed Data Processor.
To me, your talks on the analogue computers didn't make any sense at all. And brining up those ancient analogue devices insisting they are computers, into the philosophical discussion discussing human brain as computer just didn't sound right.

Incidentally, again, the thread isn't about whether brains have silicon wafers in it. It's not asking whether brains run an operating system. It's not asking whether brains run on software written in programming languages. So all of these are fanciful distractions. There's nothing clarified here about how the brain works, and how it doesn't work, and how that might compare to what we call analog computers and what we call digital computers, to be found in these criteria that don't always apply to the things we call analog computers and digital computers anyway. — InPitzotl

For the OP, it was hugely meaningful to clarify the contradictory concept "analogue computer". Without the clarification of concepts, the discussions tend to degrade into long drawn chitchats.

The brain is the brain. It's probably not useful to think of the brain as a digital computer or as an analog computer. — InPitzotl

Thats all I want to know.

Oh. If anyone is lecturing than it's you.

Oh. If anyone is lecturing than it's you. — Prishon

Oh, I am definitely lecturing!

When I get more time I'll fill in a few more details for that quote if you like.

PDP-11 had processor in the form of LSI. — Corvus

Mea culpa; I meant to refer to the PDP-8 as having no microprocessor... the PDP-11 did have one. Then again, I note that you mutated this from "microprocessor" into "processor".

Mea culpa; I meant to refer to the PDP-8 as having no microprocessor... the PDP-11 did have one. Then again, I note that you mutated this from "microprocessor" into "processor". — InPitzotl

I don't think anyone would be interested in PDP-8 or 11 in this thread. See you are the one who keeps bringing these dinosaur devices insisting they are the computers?

What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human brain. When the electronic probes are attached to the human brain, what can be measured is continuous voltage. That is all measurable from the human brain activities. So the human brains and analogue devices share the type of signals they generate which is the continuous electric voltages, measurable and monitor-able by oscilloscopes or voltage monitoring meters.I think this is a significant point for the OP. In this regard the human brains and analogue devices have common data type output. I think the human brains also generate some sort of radio waves which can be monitored via the wave receivers and monitoring apparatus. But I don't know about it in detail off hand.

Your main interest in your posts in this thread seems to keep pointing out that I have done this and that, and that is wrong blah blah ... instead of focusing on the OP, and trying to come up with some conclusions after clarifying the concepts via seeking logical arguments for it. No one would be interested in what you are pointing out about me, I am sure, and that is a waste of time in my view.

As I said earlier, the only point that you brought and presented to us and insisted the analogue computers do exist was the Wiki pages on the internet. And your explanations had little to do with the OP in any ways.

I don't blindly reject Wiki. I am sure there are excellent Wiki contents on some topics, but also there are poor and wrong contents too. So always be open minded to them.
But we are not here to keep bringing in the Wiki pages and insist something is truths, just because someone wrote about it in there. I could register to Wiki, and blab about something shifting some data from some other places, and put it up there. Would it make more certain information because it is in Wiki than someone's argument in the forum threads? I doubt it. It is a methodical doubt in principle.

Being in Philosophy forums means that we try to avoid that type of truth gullible tendency, but try to be critical on all the issues we meet, and trying to come to some conclusions and truths by our own discourse based on reasoning and basic logical sense, and also clarifying the concepts. If one says that is a waste of time, then I will say, No! you are wrong.

What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human brain — Corvus

You have answered my question! :love:

You have answered my question! :love: — Prishon

Glad to hear it sir. :strong: :wink:

Glad to hear it sir. :strong: :wink: — Corvus

Im glad you came back! Very good last reply to your "opponent", by the way... :smile:

Im glad you came back! Very good last reply to your "opponent", by the way... :smile: — Prishon

Thanks! I tend to be around here on and off most days. I might be doing other stuff, and not able to engage more than would like to. :)

Thanks! I tend to be around here on and off most days. I might be doing other stuff, and not able to engage more than would like to. :) — Corvus

I think you did already enough! At least, for me, by participating in this discusdion..

I think you did already enough! At least, for me, by participating in this discusdion.. — Prishon

Sorry, what I meant was "doing my other things for making living" here in the office. :)
Wish I was a full time student of philosophy not having to think about other things than philosophy.
I will keep buying the lottery :D

This was a very interesting thread in that initially I had no clear idea about the whole thing and the concept of "analogue computer" sounded contradictory but interesting.

It was only after exchange of many conversations questions and answers with you, things were getting clearer and clearer. This morning I was reflecting about it again briefly and was able to come up with more ideas about it.

But great, that you found interesting too. Keep having dialectic discourse and reflecting about the topics until the truths emerge out of the pure reason just like Socrates and his interlocutors had done, seems still one of the best ways doing philosophy. I must thank you for that. cheers.

Gee! You know how to express yourself! The meaning of a dialectic discourse is clear to me now! Thanks again and I hope you win the lottery! Then can we have endless discourse... No, just kidding! Dont let your office stress you too much! :smile: