104
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
104 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22713 readers
255 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Einstein was a committed socialist, Johnny Von Neumann spent half his life as the Mycroft Homes of the Mutually Assured Destruction-Industrial Complex because of his anti-communist ideology. So far as raw intelligence is a concept which even exists, it doesn't remotely align with neatly political views.
A shame about Neumann. I greatly admire his work (Computer and the brain is worth a read!) and think he could've had interesting contributions to socialist and communist ideas. Particularly creating analogies between dialectical materialism and computer architecture.
I don't see how they are connected
with wires
Oh sorry for the lack of clarity. Ok to give a proof by induction: dialectical materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position which aims to describe the material world and what is related to it through contradictions. If computer architecture is material, if Neumann is material, and the work put in towards computer architecture is material; if the aforementioned all involve contradictions and resolving contradictions, then it falls under the purview of dialectical materialism.
Dialectical materialism would fall apart if it could not explain everything (the efficacy or success is unimportant) by way of contradictions.
I hope that was an ok answer. Giving a different kind of explanation would require much more time and effort, it also might not be successful (you may be right). It's something I have thought about in depth, and of course that doesn't mean it's right. I do have arguments, it would take a while to work them out in a concise way and one amenable as a reply on a discussion board.
yeah but computer architecture at the abstract level is the design of a tool and that is the level which I think dialectical materialism touches the subject
Fair enough, that makes sense.