> I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please? When we say that A is B, or A implements C, which B is known

> I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please? When we say that A is B, or A implements C, which B is known for implementing, and we don't caveat it as an analogy or model, then we're making an existence claim about A's nature. We're saying that A is fundamentally B stuff. > It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm. Does that mean an ant nest IS A computer? Does nature literally compute? Or is that just a helpful way of looking at things? My point that the language of the article is smuggling in an ontological claim about nature. Maybe it's only meant as a useful mental model and not an actual existence claim. But maybe not. And some people will take it literally.