Happy Birthday
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Sliverlight 4.0 full screen.
Next: new user dialogues
From: Chris Ridd on 29 Apr 2010 07:23 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-29, Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > > > > Dear All > > > > zoara* is looking forward to fizzy pop, cake and jelly when he gets > > home from > > work today. > > Woot! Have a good one, mate! > > Jim From me too! Last one without offspring as well, so enjoy it :-) -- Chris
From: Richard Tobin on 29 Apr 2010 07:22 In article <1jhphcy.1v5duk41cvq5v0N%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: >> >"The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the >> >question of whether Submarines Can Swim." >> Dijkstra said some pretty stupid things. >Not that one though. I don't want to start a long thread, but I suppose I should explain what I meant. There is no interesting debate over the nature of swimming. Whether we call what a submarine does "swimming" is just a matter of definition. On the other hand, we don't yet have a good enough understanding of thought to formulate a definition that would let us say definitively whether a computer could conform to it. And one strand of our attempt to understand thought (or intelligence, and consciousness) is artificial intelligence. Whether we succeed or fail in making computers think, the attempt will probably go a long way towards answering the question of what thought really is. -- Richard
From: James Jolley on 29 Apr 2010 07:37 On 2010-04-29 10:34:38 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) said: > Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> In article <0001HW.C7FEEA7C05686E3EB02919BF(a)news.individual.net>, >> Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: >> >>> "The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the >>> question of whether Submarines Can Swim." >> >> Dijkstra said some pretty stupid things. > > Not that one though. > > Daniele Er, try telling that to proponants of strong AI.
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Apr 2010 07:42 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article > <1jhphcy.1v5duk41cvq5v0N%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > >> >"The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the > >> >question of whether Submarines Can Swim." > > >> Dijkstra said some pretty stupid things. > > >Not that one though. > > I don't want to start a long thread, but I suppose I should explain > what I meant. There is no interesting debate over the nature of > swimming. Whether we call what a submarine does "swimming" is just a > matter of definition. On the other hand, we don't yet have a good > enough understanding of thought to formulate a definition that would > let us say definitively whether a computer could conform to it. And what Dijkstra appears to be saying is that definitions of words are not very relevant here. I presume - not ever having read Dijkstra - he means something like: just as the question to be asked of a submarine is not "can it swim?", but "are they any good in water?", so we should be asking different questions about machine intelligence. He might well be wrong, but it's quite clearly not a stupid thing to say. Daniele
From: Sara on 29 Apr 2010 07:45
In article <133796432294232810.768861chrisridd-mac.com(a)news.individual.net>, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > On 2010-04-29, Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Dear All > > > > > > zoara* is looking forward to fizzy pop, cake and jelly when he gets > > > home from > > > work today. > > > > Woot! Have a good one, mate! > > > > Jim > > From me too! Last one without offspring as well, so enjoy it :-) Me 3 :-) -- Sara Hurrah - the weather has cheered up |