It's clever, but frankly I find both ideas interesting - I want a swimming submarine operated by an AI!"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
SC
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Moderator: Moderators
It's clever, but frankly I find both ideas interesting - I want a swimming submarine operated by an AI!"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
I can appreciate Dikjstra's quote. Much of science, and especially physics, moves forward by deciding that some questions are too difficult to answer, and then looking for a different question that can be answered. The original question is still important, but is left to philosophers. For example, Aristotle identified four causes, but science really focuses on one of them (efficient cause, I think, although it may be material cause).sanscardinality wrote: a quote I bumped into from Dijkstra:
SC"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
Biologists are starting to tackle these questions at several scales, even though they are very aware that they're minefields -- not only because of definitions, but also because they impinge on religion and people's cherished ideas of what constitutes personality and identity. So they are no longer exclusively the province of philosophers.caliban wrote:Much of science, and especially physics, moves forward by deciding that some questions are too difficult to answer, and then looking for a different question that can be answered. The original question is still important, but is left to philosophers.
There are many words out there which are minefields, because they are difficult to define in a rigorous fashion, and so we go around and around. Some of them that come to mind are :
mind
think and thought
consciousness
intelligence
freewill
determinism
and so on.
Yeah, well, good luck on that.Windwalker wrote: Biologists are starting to tackle these questions at several scales, even though they are very aware that they're minefields -- not only because of definitions, but also because they impinge on religion and people's cherished ideas of what constitutes personality and identity. So they are no longer exclusively the province of philosophers.
Not in the biological domain, just as the word "theory" means one thing to scientists and another to non-scientists.caliban wrote:My general impression is that these terms, although in common use, are too vague to be useful.
It's a principle with me.Windwalker wrote: P. S. Why are you grumpy? (*laughs*)
Donna suggests you are referring to fMRI experiments, which certainly are fascinating and illuminating. And they are challenging to people's self perception. And I can also think about what we have learned about how much chemistry affects personality, mood, even processing.Windwalker wrote: Biologists are starting to tackle these questions at several scales, even though they are very aware that they're minefields -- not only because of definitions, but also because they impinge on religion and people's cherished ideas of what constitutes personality and identity. So they are no longer exclusively the province of philosophers.
Yes, definitely these, plus information gleaned by studying people who had parts of their brains influenced by accident or disease (whether autism or stroke) and by parallel primate/human infant learning studies. At the molecular and cellular level, we know a good deal about brain chemistry and wiring.caliban wrote:Donna suggests you are referring to fMRI experiments, which certainly are fascinating and illuminating. And they are challenging to people's self perception. And I can also think about what we have learned about how much chemistry affects personality, mood, even processing.
Forgive me my dissent. I'll agree to your above statement, but I'll add another: just because we have learned a lot does not means that it is knowable in principle, either.Windwalker wrote:Nevertheless, the fact that it's complex and still very partially known doesn't make it unknowable in principle.
We are partly arguing over semantics, but some of our differences also come form the viewpoints of our respective disciplines. The examples you chose are from the domains of the very small, the very large or the abstract. Cutting-edge physics and mathematics operate in domains which our sensory (and possibly mental) abilities were not designed to handle. Biology, on the other hand, is very much "the middle kingdom" in scale (although not in complexity). Biological phenomena can be understood by the senses, more or less, and nothing at their root is "exotic" -- though the outcome is!caliban wrote:We're fencing over semantics to a large extent. We are learning huge amounts about brain function, and will continue to do so.
//
But my training is in physics, and the history of physics has taught us that some questions simply cannot be satisfactorily answered and you'd better get used to the idea. There is no well-defined trajectory for a subatomic particle. There are true theorems that nevertheless cannot be proved. There is no absolute rest frame. In fact, progress is usually made by jettisoning those old concepts and questions that shackle us.
//
So let's burn those terms and make some progress! that's what I say.
Physicists have exapted these terms from common usage, to where they areprecisely defined--but not necessarily as commonly understood. Which is physics is so troublesome for so many people. They have to redefine "energy" and "force" from everyday usage.sanscardinality wrote: I agree with caliban that many philosophical terms are used loosely and refer to things that cannot be explained adequately to measure in any useful way (correct me if I've paraphrased poorly). I have a few to add:
1) Matter/energy:
2) Potency/force:
Exactly! You posted this just as I was composing a very similar sentence.caliban wrote:Physicists have exapted these terms from common usage, to where they are precisely defined--but not necessarily as commonly understood.
//
I still bet that "mind" "consciousness" etc. are too slippery to be used. Or if they are, they will be exapted for use by biology as have "energy" "force" and so on.
It came to me that we're discussing two overlapping but distinct issues. One is the operational (testable) definition of a term. The other is the correspondence of a term to objective reality. The first is more rigorous and, by necessity, narrower. The latter shifts as knowledge accummulates and paradigms shift.caliban wrote:Can any one give a rigorous or even consistent definition of mind or consciousness? We perceive something like them inside ourselves--but, as in zeroth order Buddhism, I suspect they are illusions.
This is an example of where science parts with Aristotle. Aristotle has his four causes, and clearly and not without motivation SC is concerned with more than one. But science is concerned strictly with knowledge we can engineer with--just one cause, the material cause, or maybe efficient cause, I get them confused.sanscardinality wrote:Until we understand forces and things, all knowledge is also relative and therefore only accurate to the degree we can engineer with it. Light is an easy example here.