4 ms·
Worth noting that computers don't actually compute functions. They are used to simulate computation, but they're not computing per se. Any claim that they do is
by bobthechef 5y ago
Worth noting that computers don't actually compute functions. They are used to simulate computation, but they're not computing per se. Any claim that they do is an anthropomorphic projection onto an object that lacks that capacity.
Kripke's quaddition vs. addition distinction is also a good point in this regard.
- hackinthebochs 5y agoIn case you are interested, I respond to the claim that computers don't actually compute here: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/bviafb/what_is_the_materialist_response_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/bviafb/what_...
- mannykannot 5y agoThis is probably too late a response to ever be read, but with regard to the latter point, Kripke did not have to invent the 'quus' operation , as there are actual examples to be found, for example in modular versus conventional arithmetic, real-valued versus complex-valued functions, etc. These cases do not create any unavoidable problems; we simply disambiguate where necessary. It is a non-issue unless your philosophical intuition depends on the semantics of words being something more fundamental than a convention among the users of a language. As for your first claim, it appears to be begging the question, predefining, without justification, 'real' computation as being something that only humans can do, while machines can only simulate so doing.