Topics in Programming Languages, a Philosophical Analysis through the case of Prolog

[EN]Programming languages seldom find proper anchorage in philosophy of logic, language and science. is more, philosophy of language seems to be restricted to natural languages and linguistics, and even philosophy of logic is rarely framed into programming languages topics. The logic programming paradigm and Prolog are, thus, the most adequate paradigm and programming language to work on this subject, combining natural language processing and linguistics, logic programming and constriction methodology on both algorithms and procedures, on an overall philosophizing declarative status. Not only this, but the dimension of the Fifth Generation Computer system related to strong Al wherein Prolog took a major role. and its historical frame in the very crucial dialectic between procedural and declarative paradigms, structuralist and empiricist biases, serves, in exemplar form, to treat straight ahead philosophy of logic, language and science in the contemporaneous age as well. In recounting Prolog's philosophical, mechanical and algorithmic harbingers, the opportunity is open to various routes. We herein shall exemplify some: - the mechanical-computational background explored by Pascal, Leibniz, Boole, Jacquard, Babbage, Konrad Zuse, until reaching to the ACE (Alan Turing) and EDVAC (von Neumann), offering the backbone in computer architecture, and the work of Turing, Church, Gödel, Kleene, von Neumann, Shannon, and others on computability, in parallel lines, throughly studied in detail, permit us to interpret ahead the evolving realm of programming languages. The proper line from lambda-calculus, to the Algol-family, the declarative and procedural split with the C language and Prolog, and the ensuing branching and programming languages explosion and further delimitation, are thereupon inspected as to relate them with the proper syntax, semantics and philosophical élan of logic programming and Prolog

Apperceptive patterning: Artefaction, extensional beliefs and cognitive scaffolding

In “Psychopower and Ordinary Madness” my ambition, as it relates to Bernard Stiegler’s recent literature, was twofold: 1) critiquing Stiegler’s work on exosomatization and artefactual posthumanism—or, more specifically, nonhumanism—to problematize approaches to media archaeology that rely upon technical exteriorization; 2) challenging how Stiegler engages with Giuseppe Longo and Francis Bailly’s conception of negative entropy. These efforts were directed by a prevalent techno-cultural qualifier: the rise of Synthetic Intelligence (including neural nets, deep learning, predictive processing and Bayesian models of cognition). This paper continues this project but first directs a critical analytic lens at the Derridean practice of the ontologization of grammatization from which Stiegler emerges while also distinguishing how metalanguages operate in relation to object-oriented environmental interaction by way of inferentialism. Stalking continental (Kapp, Simondon, Leroi-Gourhan, etc.) and analytic traditions (e.g., Carnap, Chalmers, Clark, Sutton, Novaes, etc.), we move from artefacts to AI and Predictive Processing so as to link theories related to technicity with philosophy of mind. Simultaneously drawing forth Robert Brandom’s conceptualization of the roles that commitments play in retrospectively reconstructing the social experiences that lead to our endorsement(s) of norms, we compliment this account with Reza Negarestani’s deprivatized account of intelligence while analyzing the equipollent role between language and media (both digital and analog)

The Inhuman Overhang: On Differential Heterogenesis and Multi-Scalar Modeling

As a philosophical paradigm, differential heterogenesis offers us a novel descriptive vantage with which to inscribe Deleuze’s virtuality within the terrain of “differential becoming,” conjugating “pure saliences” so as to parse economies, microhistories, insurgencies, and epistemological evolutionary processes that can be conceived of independently from their representational form. Unlike Gestalt theory’s oppositional constructions, the advantage of this aperture is that it posits a dynamic context to both media and its analysis, rendering them functionally tractable and set in relation to other objects, rather than as sedentary identities. Surveying the genealogy of differential heterogenesis with particular interest in the legacy of Lautman’s dialectic, I make the case for a reading of the Deleuzean virtual that departs from an event-oriented approach, galvanizing Sarti and Citti’s dynamic a priori vis-à-vis Deleuze’s philosophy of difference. Specifically, I posit differential heterogenesis as frame with which to examine our contemporaneous epistemic shift as it relates to multi-scalar computational modeling while paying particular attention to neuro-inferential modes of inductive learning and homologous cognitive architecture. Carving a bricolage between Mark Wilson’s work on the “greediness of scales” and Deleuze’s “scales of reality”, this project threads between static ecologies and active externalism vis-à-vis endocentric frames of reference and syntactical scaffolding

Complex Neural Networks for Audio

Audio is represented in two mathematically equivalent ways: the real-valued time domain (i.e., waveform) and the complex-valued frequency domain (i.e., spectrum). There are advantages to the frequency-domain representation, e.g., the human auditory system is known to process sound in the frequency-domain. Furthermore, linear time-invariant systems are convolved with sources in the time-domain, whereas they may be factorized in the frequency-domain. Neural networks have become rather useful when applied to audio tasks such as machine listening and audio synthesis, which are related by their dependencies on high quality acoustic models. They ideally encapsulate fine-scale temporal structure, such as that encoded in the phase of frequency-domain audio, yet there are no authoritative deep learning methods for complex audio. This manuscript is dedicated to addressing the shortcoming. Chapter 2 motivates complex networks by their affinity with complex-domain audio, while Chapter 3 contributes methods for building and optimizing complex networks. We show that the naive implementation of Adam optimization is incorrect for complex random variables and show that selection of input and output representation has a significant impact on the performance of a complex network. Experimental results with novel complex neural architectures are provided in the second half of this manuscript. Chapter 4 introduces a complex model for binaural audio source localization. We show that, like humans, the complex model can generalize to different anatomical filters, which is important in the context of machine listening. The complex model\u27s performance is better than that of the real-valued models, as well as real- and complex-valued baselines. Chapter 5 proposes a two-stage method for speech enhancement. In the first stage, a complex-valued stochastic autoencoder projects complex vectors to a discrete space. In the second stage, long-term temporal dependencies are modeled in the discrete space. The autoencoder raises the performance ceiling for state of the art speech enhancement, but the dynamic enhancement model does not outperform other baselines. We discuss areas for improvement and note that the complex Adam optimizer improves training convergence over the naive implementation

Workshop on Verification and Theorem Proving for Continuous Systems (NetCA Workshop 2005)

Oxford, UK, 26 August 200

Digital neuromorphic auditory systems

This dissertation presents several digital neuromorphic auditory systems. Neuromorphic systems are capable of running in real-time at a smaller computing cost and consume lower power than on widely available general computers. These auditory systems are considered neuromorphic as they are modelled after computational models of the mammalian auditory pathway and are capable of running on digital hardware, or more specifically on a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The models introduced are categorised into three parts: a cochlear model, an auditory pitch model, and a functional primary auditory cortical (A1) model. The cochlear model is the primary interface of an input sound signal and transmits the 2D time-frequency representation of the sound to the pitch models as well as to the A1 model. In the pitch model, pitch information is extracted from the sound signal in the form of a fundamental frequency. From the A1 model, timbre information in the form of time-frequency envelope information of the sound signal is extracted. Since the computational auditory models mentioned above are required to be implemented on FPGAs that possess fewer computational resources than general-purpose computers, the algorithms in the models are optimised so that they fit on a single FPGA. The optimisation includes using simplified hardware-implementable signal processing algorithms. Computational resource information of each model on FPGA is extracted to understand the minimum computational resources required to run each model. This information includes the quantity of logic modules, register quantity utilised, and power consumption. Similarity comparisons are also made between the output responses of the computational auditory models on software and hardware using pure tones, chirp signals, frequency-modulated signal, moving ripple signals, and musical signals as input. The limitation of the responses of the models to musical signals at multiple intensity levels is also presented along with the use of an automatic gain control algorithm to alleviate such limitations. With real-world musical signals as their inputs, the responses of the models are also tested using classifiers – the response of the auditory pitch model is used for the classification of monophonic musical notes, and the response of the A1 model is used for the classification of musical instruments with their respective monophonic signals. Classification accuracy results are shown for model output responses on both software and hardware. With the hardware implementable auditory pitch model, the classification score stands at 100% accuracy for musical notes from the 4th and 5th octaves containing 24 classes of notes. With the hardware implementation auditory timbre model, the classification score is 92% accuracy for 12 classes musical instruments. Also presented is the difference in memory requirements of the model output responses on both software and hardware – pitch and timbre responses used for the classification exercises use 24 and 2 times less memory space for hardware than software