> by virtue of the fact that machines can also understand it.
I'd argue strongly against understanding. Our computers are just sophisticated version of Jacquard Loom and music box.
I'd argue strongly against understanding. Our computers are just sophisticated version of Jacquard Loom and music box.
If a machine can interpret instructions and follow them then that is a sort of understanding. At least it has the same kind of result as handing instructions to a human and having them follow the directions to complete a set of tasks.
Does the human understanding of instructions differ significantly? Yes a human can understand much more ambiguous instructions and perhaps complete a larger set of possible tasks, nonetheless it's a similar process going on at least on the surface.
Where is this player piano that creates original works every time, and sounds so good we almost can't tell the difference?
Well in the case of Python, the interpreter is indeed interpreting.
We could also talk about how the word 'executes' implies some kind of agency which computers lack. It's like saying a rock just executes the laws of physics when it rolls down a hill...