4 ms·
Indeed. Your comment prepared me for the experience, but the ball did not drop in my case until taeric's comment (which incidentally missed your point). To ta
by danuker 4y ago
Indeed.
Your comment prepared me for the experience, but the ball did not drop in my case until taeric's comment (which incidentally missed your point).
To taeric: Anything IS an analog computer of itself. Doing it for real completely bypasses the need to simulate.
- feet 4y agoThis is the explanation of why the brain is an analog biochemical computer
- taeric 4y agoBy this, though, you have to then consider mere half life decay as a calculator. Such that the definition becomes pointless.
- uoaei 4y ago> Such that the definition becomes pointless. This is a subjective, normative claim. As such it doesn't hold much water.
- taeric 4y agoHow is this, then. If I can model everything as a calculation, such that all things are computers. What isn't a computer?
- uoaei 4y agoExactly my point :)
- taeric 4y agoAnd my point is if your definition for a thing is so expansive that everything can fit, it seems a poor definition.
- uoaei 4y agoI think "description" is more apt than "definition", however still both are different from "distinction". What I mean is, a distinction (by definition) draws a boundary between "that" and "not-that", but descriptions don't need to do that, they are merely conceptual framings that can be applied to whatever is relevant.
- danuker 4y agoFor instance, an exponential decay is a bad model of a stepwise function. So, while everything is a computer, not everything computes what you want it to. For purposes of human life, only a device easy to control is a computer.