Happy Birthday
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Sliverlight 4.0 full screen.
Next: new user dialogues
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Apr 2010 07:49 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > 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. > Er, try telling that to proponants of strong AI. Why, do they think that people who disagree with them must be stupid? Daniele
From: James Jolley on 29 Apr 2010 07:54 On 2010-04-29 12:42:00 +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 >> <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 This may sound funny, but do you ever do anything else apart from argue the toss with your fake philosophical bollocks? Not that it's worth much, we can all philosophise until the cows come home but philosophy by definition is irrelevant.
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Apr 2010 07:59 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > > He might well be wrong, but it's quite clearly not a stupid thing to > > say. > This may sound funny, but do you ever do anything else apart from argue > the toss with your fake philosophical bollocks? Not that it's worth > much, we can all philosophise until the cows come home but philosophy > by definition is irrelevant. It sounds rude and aggressive, not funny. Daniele
From: James Jolley on 29 Apr 2010 08:05 On 2010-04-29 12:59:36 +0100, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) said: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >>> He might well be wrong, but it's quite clearly not a stupid thing to >>> say. > >> This may sound funny, but do you ever do anything else apart from argue >> the toss with your fake philosophical bollocks? Not that it's worth >> much, we can all philosophise until the cows come home but philosophy >> by definition is irrelevant. > > It sounds rude and aggressive, not funny. > > Daniele Try asking philosophers what they think of scientists. They're rather angry i'd imagine, given that philosophy's now been reduced to the objectivity of language and such. No real scientific ambition comes from philosophy these days, what they say as a conglomerate is moonshine in my view.
From: Peter Ceresole on 29 Apr 2010 09:44
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > From me too! Last one without offspring as well, so enjoy it :-) Oh Lawdy! Never to sleep soundly again... And that includes when they grow up. -- Peter |