Happy Birthday
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Sliverlight 4.0 full screen.
Next: new user dialogues
From: Peter Ceresole on 29 Apr 2010 09:44 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > 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. Why so aggressive, James? And I'd say that if life is about having an interesting and amusing time (and what else could it possibly be about?) then philosophy asks the right questions, and is more fun than almost anything else. And there really isn't anything the slightest bit 'fake' about it. -- Peter
From: Woody on 29 Apr 2010 10:12 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > 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 have. Luckily only the parts he wrote about > network searching and routing, which is a lot clearer. I have. Luckily only the parts he wrote about network searching and routing, which is a lot clearer. -- Woody
From: D.M. Procida on 29 Apr 2010 10:14 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Er, try telling that to proponants of strong AI. > > > > Why, do they think that people who disagree with them must be stupid? > > No, they are all deaf. You're just trying to trick me into shouting at them. Daniele
From: Woody on 29 Apr 2010 10:35 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Er, try telling that to proponants of strong AI. > > > > > > Why, do they think that people who disagree with them must be stupid? > > > > No, they are all deaf. > > You're just trying to trick me into shouting at them. Or turning up the volume.. -- Woody
From: Richard Tobin on 29 Apr 2010 10:55
In article <1jhpmt4.1cd3es96d1b5fN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: >And what Dijkstra appears to be saying is that definitions of words are >not very relevant here. That's not how I interpret it. But then I have never seen what context he wrote it in. >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. No-one ever asks if submarines can swim. The fact that they do ask whether computers can think shows that they don't mean it in a narrow definitional sense. Dijkstra's comment reads to me as a pedantic refusal to engage with the question. -- Richard |