[Wittrs] Re: Following a Rule
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:07:43 -0700
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM, jrstern <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM, jrstern <jrstern@...> wrote:
>> > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > Can a computer have original intentionality, without computing?
>> >>
>> >> Can a computer have a mind of it's own?
>> >
>> > If it's not turned on, then I think not.
>> >
>> > After that, it gets fuzzy.
>> >
>>
>> Can we leave it fuzzy?
>
> No.
>
I didn't define "we" though. Maybe we can, but you and yours can't?
>> In my experience, faux precision ("the cure") is often far worse
>> than the "illness" (since when was fuzzy an exclusively negative
>> attribute?).
>
> Can I please speak again with your evil twin,
> the one who writes computer programs?
>
Sure, here I am.
> Of course it's not precision as such that we seek,
> so much as specificity ... perhaps that is the proper
> Wittgensteinian grammar for the issues.
>
> Josh
>
I don't see the big mystery. A computer is like a puppet theater on
steroids, with human business rules, processing procedures, encoded to
run on their own. The ATM does what the bank teller used to do,
except doesn't hear any gossip, so in terms of banks "keeping tabs",
that doesn't happen so much as it used to (most bankers read the same
financial press as anyone i.e. have no clue).
I'm not persuaded there are any deep questions in this area, except
what jobs are more properly left to humans, and I can think of a great
many. It's about getting the right mix, that concerns me as a systems
designer. Where do you want to take the drudgery out, and where is
getting it right more important than being boring work? If you need
to pay a human to do what a human is better at, then do so.
I guess I'll take a ball in your court attitude i.e. what do you think
remains to be explained? You intimate you're aware of some giant
holes in human knowledge, but I'm not sure where you're looking or
what you're seeing on the other side of that porous membrane, if
anything.
Kirby
>
>
> WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
> TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
> 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
> 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
> GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
> YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
> FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
>
>
WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
Other related posts:
