[danuker]

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]

This is the explanation of why the brain is an analog biochemical computer

[taeric]

By this, though, you have to then consider mere half life decay as a calculator. Such that the definition becomes pointless.

[uoaei]

> Such that the definition becomes pointless.

This is a subjective, normative claim. As such it doesn't hold much water.

[taeric]

How is this, then. If I can model everything as a calculation, such that all things are computers. What isn't a computer?

[uoaei]

Exactly my point :)

[taeric]

And my point is if your definition for a thing is so expansive that everything can fit, it seems a poor definition.

[uoaei]

I 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]

For 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.