5 ms·

I think part of the confusion stems from the word “computer” itself. Ted Nelson makes the point that the word is an accident of history, arising because main fu

by abtinf 7y ago

I think part of the confusion stems from the word “computer” itself. Ted Nelson makes the point that the word is an accident of history, arising because main funding came from large military computation projects. But computers don’t “compute”, they don’t do math. Computers are simplifying, integrating machines that manipulate symbols. Data (and its relationships) is the essential concept in the term “symbolic manipulator”. Code (ie a function) is the essential concept in the term “compute”.

yrro 7y ago
In Anathem by Neal Stephenson, computers are called Syntactic Devices ("syndev").
kmonsen 7y ago
Hmm, interesting. In Norwegian the word for computer translates to "data machine" (datamaskin)
- Ma8ee 7y ago
  As in Swedish.
  - hanche 7y ago
    The Swedish name is “dator”, isn’t it? Its root is certainly “data”, but I like it better than the more cumbersome Norwegian word “datamaskin”.
    - nemetroid 7y ago
      Yes, it's "dator". The word was initially proposed based on the same Latin -tor suffix as in e.g. doctor and tractor, so the word would fit just as well into English as it does in Swedish.
    - asjo 7y ago
      And in Danish we had "datamat", which has a nice ring to it. But everybody says "computer" instead.
    - Ma8ee 7y ago
      I’ve always thought that dator was just a short form of datamaskin. But some other comments suggested otherwise, so I had to look it up. Apparently, dator is a made up word from 1968, from data and parallels the words tractor and doctor.
sixstringtheory 7y ago
But what is math, if not symbolic manipulation? Numbers are symbols that convey specific ideas of data, no? And once you go past algebra, the numbers are almost incidental to the more abstract concepts and symbols. Not trying to start a flamewar, I just found the distinction you drew interesting.
- abtinf 7y ago
  It involves symbolic manipulation, but it’s more than that. Math is the science of method. Science requires reason. If one were to say computers do math, they would be saying computers reason. Reason requires free will. Only man can reason; machines cannot reason. (For a full explanation of the relationship between free will and reason, see the book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Man does math, then creates a machine as a tool to manipulate symbols.
  - sixstringtheory 7y ago
    You make some interesting points. There was a time I was intrigued by Objectivism but ultimately it fell flat for me. I sort of had similar ideas before encountering it in the literature, but these days I'm mostly captivated by what I learned from "Sapiens" to be known as inter-subjective reality, which I also mostly arrived at through my own questioning of Objectivism. I'm not sure we can conceive of any objective reality completely divorced from our own perceptive abilities. > Reason requires free will isn't it still kind of an open question whether humans have free will, or what free will even is? How can we be sure our own brains are not simply very complex (hah, sorry, oxymoron) machines that don't "reason" so much as react to or interpret series of inputs, and transform, associate and store information? I find the answer to this question often moves into metaphysical, mystical or straight up religious territory. I'm interested to know some more philosophical approaches to this.
    - abtinf 7y ago
      Your comment reminds me of the first line from Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR): “Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain.” There are many intellectual exercises that feel interesting, but do they provide you with the means—the conceptual tools—to live the best life? If objective reality doesn’t exist, we can’t even have this conversation. How can you reason—that is, use logic—in relation to the non-objective? That would be a contradiction. Sense perception is our means of grasping (not just barely scratching or touching) reality (that which exists). If a man does not accept objective reality, then further discussion is impossible and improper. Any system which rejects objective reality cannot be the foundation of a good life. It leaves man subject to the whim of an unknown and unknowable world. For a full validation of free will, I would refer you to Chapter 2 of OPAR. That man has free will is knowable through direct experience. Science has nothing to say about whether you have free will—free will is a priori required for science to be a valid concept. If you don’t have free will, again this entire conversation is moot. What would it mean to make an argument or convince someone? If I give you evidence and reason, I am relying on your faculty of free will to consider my argument and judge it—that is, to decide about it. You might decide on it, you might decide to drift and not consider it, you might even decide to shut your mind to it on purpose. But you do decide.
Jare 7y ago
In Spanish the preferred name is "ordenador" which would translate to something like "sorter" or "organizer machine".
- danudey 7y ago
  In French, it's the same; it's about "putting things in order", similar in concept to an ordonnateur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordonnateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordonnateur
- andredz 7y ago
  That's in Spain. In American Spanish computador/a is most often used: http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=computador http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=computador There is also informática/computación; both Spanish words to refer to the same thing but used in Spain/America. I guess that literally they'd be something like IT and CS.
  - Jare 7y ago
    Good points from both, indeed it's a country thing not a language thing. My bad!
- adl 7y ago
  more accurate, it is called 'ordenador' in Spain. In Latin America, is 'Computadora'
- emmelaich 7y ago
  Similarly for French - "ordinateur" https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9O0665 https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9O0665 A search for "computer" does not find anything; though I suspect many French actually use computer not ordinateur.
  - grumpydba 7y ago
    No we don't. We use ordinateur.
- 7y ago

by abtinf 7y ago

yrro 7y ago

In Anathem by Neal Stephenson, computers are called Syntactic Devices ("syndev").

kmonsen 7y ago

Hmm, interesting. In Norwegian the word for computer translates to "data machine" (datamaskin)

Ma8ee 7y ago
As in Swedish.
- hanche 7y ago
  The Swedish name is “dator”, isn’t it? Its root is certainly “data”, but I like it better than the more cumbersome Norwegian word “datamaskin”.
  - nemetroid 7y ago
    Yes, it's "dator". The word was initially proposed based on the same Latin -tor suffix as in e.g. doctor and tractor, so the word would fit just as well into English as it does in Swedish.
  - asjo 7y ago
    And in Danish we had "datamat", which has a nice ring to it. But everybody says "computer" instead.
  - Ma8ee 7y ago
    I’ve always thought that dator was just a short form of datamaskin. But some other comments suggested otherwise, so I had to look it up. Apparently, dator is a made up word from 1968, from data and parallels the words tractor and doctor.

sixstringtheory 7y ago

But what is math, if not symbolic manipulation? Numbers are symbols that convey specific ideas of data, no? And once you go past algebra, the numbers are almost incidental to the more abstract concepts and symbols. Not trying to start a flamewar, I just found the distinction you drew interesting.

abtinf 7y ago
It involves symbolic manipulation, but it’s more than that. Math is the science of method. Science requires reason. If one were to say computers do math, they would be saying computers reason. Reason requires free will. Only man can reason; machines cannot reason. (For a full explanation of the relationship between free will and reason, see the book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Man does math, then creates a machine as a tool to manipulate symbols.
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  You make some interesting points. There was a time I was intrigued by Objectivism but ultimately it fell flat for me. I sort of had similar ideas before encountering it in the literature, but these days I'm mostly captivated by what I learned from "Sapiens" to be known as inter-subjective reality, which I also mostly arrived at through my own questioning of Objectivism. I'm not sure we can conceive of any objective reality completely divorced from our own perceptive abilities. > Reason requires free will isn't it still kind of an open question whether humans have free will, or what free will even is? How can we be sure our own brains are not simply very complex (hah, sorry, oxymoron) machines that don't "reason" so much as react to or interpret series of inputs, and transform, associate and store information? I find the answer to this question often moves into metaphysical, mystical or straight up religious territory. I'm interested to know some more philosophical approaches to this.
  - abtinf 7y ago
    Your comment reminds me of the first line from Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR): “Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain.” There are many intellectual exercises that feel interesting, but do they provide you with the means—the conceptual tools—to live the best life? If objective reality doesn’t exist, we can’t even have this conversation. How can you reason—that is, use logic—in relation to the non-objective? That would be a contradiction. Sense perception is our means of grasping (not just barely scratching or touching) reality (that which exists). If a man does not accept objective reality, then further discussion is impossible and improper. Any system which rejects objective reality cannot be the foundation of a good life. It leaves man subject to the whim of an unknown and unknowable world. For a full validation of free will, I would refer you to Chapter 2 of OPAR. That man has free will is knowable through direct experience. Science has nothing to say about whether you have free will—free will is a priori required for science to be a valid concept. If you don’t have free will, again this entire conversation is moot. What would it mean to make an argument or convince someone? If I give you evidence and reason, I am relying on your faculty of free will to consider my argument and judge it—that is, to decide about it. You might decide on it, you might decide to drift and not consider it, you might even decide to shut your mind to it on purpose. But you do decide.

Jare 7y ago

In Spanish the preferred name is "ordenador" which would translate to something like "sorter" or "organizer machine".

danudey 7y ago
In French, it's the same; it's about "putting things in order", similar in concept to an ordonnateur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordonnateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordonnateur
andredz 7y ago
That's in Spain. In American Spanish computador/a is most often used: http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=computador http://lema.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?key=computador There is also informática/computación; both Spanish words to refer to the same thing but used in Spain/America. I guess that literally they'd be something like IT and CS.
- Jare 7y ago
  Good points from both, indeed it's a country thing not a language thing. My bad!
adl 7y ago
more accurate, it is called 'ordenador' in Spain. In Latin America, is 'Computadora'
emmelaich 7y ago
Similarly for French - "ordinateur" https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9O0665 https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9O0665 A search for "computer" does not find anything; though I suspect many French actually use computer not ordinateur.
- grumpydba 7y ago
  No we don't. We use ordinateur.
7y ago