|
16
|
1 Born December 1949.
|
|
|
2
|
|
15
|
3 After starting a degree at Oberlin in 1967, dropped out without
|
|
16
|
4 completing 3rd year.
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6 Out to BC with Katy in the fall of 1969, back to Cambridge and
|
|
|
7 Philadelphia to see respective families.
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9 Had to get out of the US (draft), so that winter took over the old job
|
|
|
10 of his brother Arnold in an NRC high-energy Physics lab, living with
|
|
|
11 Katy and Arnold in an old farmhouse in a posh neighbourhood in Ottawa.
|
|
|
12 Very snowy winter, record-breaking, 18 feet?, long driveway and a lot
|
|
|
13 of shovelling, piled up to the 2nd floor. Involve with Ottawa QUaker
|
|
|
14 Meeting, a youth group, and a Mennonite youth group. Stayed through
|
|
|
15 the several years. March 1971, employer partnering with the Univ. of
|
|
|
16 Chicago Physics dept and LRL in Berkeley, went there, installed a
|
|
|
17 PDP-9 / 15, in a 40-ft Fruehof trailer, moved from Ottawa to Fermi
|
|
|
18 Lab, where Brian's office was. Programmed in machine language (see
|
|
|
19 below). He could 'program like crazy' in the air-conditioned trailer,
|
|
|
20 high-volume music in head-phones, but couldn't write English. Lived
|
|
|
21 in a hotel in Hyde ? park. They owned an Austin Mini bought for $100
|
|
|
22 in summer of 1970, working at a Quaker peace conference on Rhinestone
|
|
|
23 island in lake near Ottawa.
|
|
15
|
24
|
|
16
|
25 Katy went out to Berkeley that spring, where the experiment was to
|
|
|
26 take place. Married in June of 1971 at Pendle Hill / Swarthmore, then
|
|
|
27 back to Berkeley. Lived in a back yard house at Telegraph and Shannon
|
|
|
28 (?). Legally a Canadian resident notionally in US on a business trip.
|
|
|
29 Experiment ran, wrapped and went back to Ottawa. He wanted to stay in
|
|
|
30 US, they ended up (autumn 1971? 1972?) living with his parents in
|
|
|
31 Cambridge, where WCS was by then head of the new Center for the Study
|
|
|
32 of World Religions at Harvard.
|
|
|
33
|
|
17
|
34 [Applied to Graduate School at MIT in EECS, started taking some
|
|
16
|
35 courses, but eventually MIT admin said be couldn't be admitted w/o a
|
|
17
|
36 UG degree.]
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
38 Interested in being a social inquiry major, in order to study the
|
|
|
39 politics of high technology, how we get to transferring to EECS from
|
|
|
40 that goal is not clear.
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42 It was very quickly clear that the understanding of computing that the
|
|
|
43 social scientists were critiquing was not [Programming in machine
|
|
|
44 language] the computing that I know. So I need to get clear on what
|
|
|
45 computing really is, so that I can legitimately critique it. So I
|
|
|
46 thought I had to go into the heart of the beast, as it were.
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
48 Terry Winograd provided the friendship and both social and 'official'
|
|
|
49 support-structure to allow Brian to start to express himself out loud,
|
|
|
50 as it were.
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
52 Saying to Fodor, ref. Tom Swift and his procedural grandmother, that
|
|
|
53 "this is not how compilation worked", Fodor was blustery but
|
|
|
54 open-minded enough to say "this is your subject area, I'm sure you're
|
|
|
55 rightl tell me how it does work". He and Fodor were friends, but
|
|
|
56 later Fodor "curdled".
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
58 Dog hanging on to a scented cloth -- sitting at the console of a 360
|
|
|
59 and keying in instructinos and debugging by staring at the pattern of
|
|
|
60 lights that the console frooze in.
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
62 Articulating an understanding of computing that would do justice to his
|
|
|
63 intuitive understanding of computing as he had experienced it is the
|
|
|
64 theme of all his intellectual work.
|
|
16
|
65
|
|
|
66 "Course on compilers, I had written a compiler, I'd written a tiny OS
|
|
|
67 for a PDP-9 running a physics experiment". Pat Winston sat me down
|
|
|
68 and took me through the requirements for a CSEE degree, and decided
|
|
|
69 he'd satisfied them all. But he needed a Batchelor's thesis, so they
|
|
|
70 took a paper from a course he'd taken in the autumn, called "Comments
|
|
|
71 on Comments", and added some stuff, it got marked and accepted as his
|
|
|
72 thesis, so awarded the degree and could actually be enrolled as a
|
|
17
|
73 student under the supervision of Peter Szolovits.
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
75 [CSLI not particularly relevant]
|
|
16
|
76
|
|
17
|
77 [CPSR?]
|
|
|
78
|
|
19
|
79 ----------
|
|
|
80 Torn between religion and physics as an undergraduate.
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
82 MIT, 1974++ MSc thesis _Levels, Layers and Planes_, about
|
|
|
83 architectural properties of computer science
|
|
|
84 There are no particulars in physics [ref. deiexis discussion, where is
|
|
|
85 it]
|
|
|
86 WHat drove me out of social inquiry and back to department 6 was
|
|
|
87 needing to be back in the practice. That skill was not somthing that
|
|
|
88 people on the outside understood.
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
90 Lens on a conical base, watchmakers, with oil and iron filings, that
|
|
|
91 allowed you to manifest the data on digital mag tape. No disks on the
|
|
|
92 PDP-9. That concrete engagement with the computer affected my sense
|
|
|
93 of digitality.
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
95 I wanted there to be types, not tokens. Set theory has no constants
|
|
|
96 (e.g. pi, e, i), functions, derivatives, intergrals are types in a
|
|
|
97 way. Wanted a KR that didn't depend on token identity (no eq tests in
|
|
|
98 the interpreter).
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
100 LLP was an attempt to get the things, "kernel facts", of a KRL to be
|
|
|
101 types, not tokens (cf *car* and *cdr* vs. differentiation and
|
|
|
102 integration), the ontology of the computational.
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
104 [HST mentions intergral signs and script deltas] Brian says
|
|
|
105 "syncategoramaticity
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
107 Promote the eq tests into type tests (in the interpreter).
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
109 "You want to arrange the metaphysics so that _everything_ falls out"
|
|
|
110 G. Nunberg of BCS
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
112 My imagination was arrested by essentially foundational questions
|
|
|
113 about ... this stuff. Not interested in applications, AI as such,
|
|
|
114 etc.
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
116 Still wanted to know what computing was., remains true up to what's in
|
|
|
117 this book, CR.
|
|
18
|
118 ------------
|
|
|
119 Foundations of/Philosophy of Computation
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
121 Lisp was 'broken', 2-Lisp was a flawed attempt to fix it, 3-Lisp takes
|
|
|
122 us in to new territory.
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
124 Don't think you have to be a specialist to read this book.
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
126 Effective vs non-Effective is actually new: at the book boundaries,
|
|
|
127 project onto the effective [?]
|
|
17
|
128
|
|
|
129
|
|
18
|
130
|
