Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein on Machines and Thinking
- From: "SWM" <swmirsky@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:47:32 -0000
I tend to be very close-mouthed around my toaster. Never know what the hot
little elements inside will overhear! -- SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "han.geurdes@xxxxxxxxx" <wittrs@...> wrote:
>
> Don't tell your toaster!
>
> Verzonden van mijn HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> Van: "SWM" <swmirsky@...>
> Aan: "Wittgenstein's Aftermath" <wittrs@...>
> Onderwerp: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein on Machines and Thinking
> Datum: ma, jun. 20, 2011 21:34
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Han Geurdes <wittrs@> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed Stuart, if aliens were created out of Silicon and not Carbon would
> > they count as thinking machines?
> >
>
> My point, Han, is that merely being different from what we're used to, when
> applying a word like "thinking" to the entity in question, isn't enough to
> preclude the application of the term. To some degree, of course, word usage
> may change (it always does in our applications over time in any event). But
> also something like "thinking" isn't all that well defined either. There may
> be no fixed referent for the term but only a range of applications. Why
> shouldn't machines be made that can think in some fashion akin to what we
> count as thinking in ourselves, even if no current machine qualifies? -- SWM
>
>
> > On 20 June 2011 16:25, SWM <swmirsky@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [corrected version]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'Is it possible for a machine to think?' ... the trouble
> > > > which is expressed in this question is not really that we
> > > > don't yet know a machine which could do the job. The
> > > > question is not analogous to that which someone might
> > > > have asked a hundred years ago: 'Can a machine liquify
> > > > gas?' The trouble is rather that the sentence, 'A machine
> > > > thinks (perceives, wishes)' seems somehow nonsensical.
> > > > It is as though we had asked 'Has the number 3 a
> > > > colour?' (BB 47)
> > > >
> > > > But a machine surely cannot think! - Is that an empirical
> > > > statement? No. We only say of a human being and what
> > > > is like one that it thinks. We also say it of dolls and no
> > > > doubt of spirits too. Look at the word 'to think' as a tool.
> > > > (PI §360)
> > > >
> > > > SW
> > >
> > > And the issue, Sean, would be whether a machine can be like us in a
> > > relevant way. Say a machine were built to speak to us in a thoughtful and
> > > autonomous way. (By "autonomous" I mean without being pre-programmed to
> > > give
> > > certain answers to certain questions under certain conditions.) Now we
> > > have
> > > a machine that is like us in a relevant way. Maybe it lacks a body like
> > > ours
> > > (it's not Commander Data). Maybe it lacks all our sensory capabilities
> > > because of different equipment to which it is attached. But if it has
> > > enough
> > > sensory capability to share enough of our world and language capability
> > > (for
> > > putting information into words we can understand) AND it has the capacity
> > > to
> > > learn and think about what it encounters and has learned, then if it
> > > answered questions intelligibly (without being programmed to the question,
> > > as it were) then what would the problem be?
> > >
> > > Is it that "think" or "understand" are not simple terms with simple
> > > meanings? Well that's fine because a great many of our terms are not, even
> > > when applied to entities like ourselves.
> > >
> > > Would you make the case that Wittgenstein, in the above passages, was
> > > saying that it makes no sense to say of a machine that it thinks?
> > >
> > > But what about an ape, many of which have shown clear thinking behaviors.
> > > Or dogs? What about an alien organism from another planet? Could we not
> > > think of it as thinking merely because it is sharply different from
> > > ourselves?
> > >
> > > If any of these can be said to think, why not a machine, too? Of course
> > > this is not to say that it would make sense to say of any old machine that
> > > it's thinking! My toaster certainly shows no signs of contemplation before
> > > browning my bread. Nor does my pc. But why would we not be able to say of
> > > some machines that they think, even if there are no such examples as of
> > > now?
> > >
> > > SWM
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wittrs mailing list
> > > Wittrs@
> > > http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wittrs mailing list
> > Wittrs@
> > http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@...
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@...
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
