I'm actually interested in learning about this just for the difference of approach. I don't particularly doubt that the explanations and critiques of the present paradigm will be devoid of any serious insight. Humans tend to think that stuff we see around us happen for a reason and overrate the ability of people to design things as oppos…
I'm actually interested in learning about this just for the difference of approach. I don't particularly doubt that the explanations and critiques of the present paradigm will be devoid of any serious insight. Humans tend to think that stuff we see around us happen for a reason and overrate the ability of people to design things as opposed to use things because it's just historically been useful. Aspects of computation might be so general that our current scheme is obviously one of many possible ways in which it could have developed, but to suggest that it has some direct connection to the gender, population group or personal identity of people in Mathematics is absolutely unbelievable to me. Mathematics has not been designed, rather has been adapted and repurposed for use over many millennia driven by technological needs and limitations. It's not been carefully crafted by humans, it's a population level emergent historical artifact (like Mathematical Notation and specific forms of proof writing etc, or axioms) and adherence to it bears fruit and sometimes makes imagining beyond that limited, but so does all symbolic expression of computation. I cannot understand why human endeavors have to be segregated along the same uninteresting and totally uninsightful confabulated stories.
Still I'm pro hearing stories about the world we live in, even if it may falsely give people an impression of why we are where we are.
I'm actually interested in learning about this just for the difference of approach. I don't particularly doubt that the explanations and critiques of the present paradigm will be devoid of any serious insight. Humans tend to think that stuff we see around us happen for a reason and overrate the ability of people to design things as opposed to use things because it's just historically been useful. Aspects of computation might be so general that our current scheme is obviously one of many possible ways in which it could have developed, but to suggest that it has some direct connection to the gender, population group or personal identity of people in Mathematics is absolutely unbelievable to me. Mathematics has not been designed, rather has been adapted and repurposed for use over many millennia driven by technological needs and limitations. It's not been carefully crafted by humans, it's a population level emergent historical artifact (like Mathematical Notation and specific forms of proof writing etc, or axioms) and adherence to it bears fruit and sometimes makes imagining beyond that limited, but so does all symbolic expression of computation. I cannot understand why human endeavors have to be segregated along the same uninteresting and totally uninsightful confabulated stories.
Still I'm pro hearing stories about the world we live in, even if it may falsely give people an impression of why we are where we are.