Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30697 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-25 18:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2014-05-25 16:36 -0400 |
| Articles | 10 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Are Computer able to think? David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-25 18:38 +0100
Re: Are Computer able to think? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-25 19:47 +0200
Re: Are Computer able to think? David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-25 19:19 +0100
Re: Are Computer able to think? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-05-25 20:50 +0200
Re: Are Computer able to think? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-26 18:50 +0100
Re: Are Computer able to think? David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-26 20:42 +0100
Re: Are Computer able to think? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-25 16:31 -0400
Re: Are Computer able to think? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-05-25 22:36 +0200
Re: Are Computer able to think? HaveANiceDay <HaveANiceDay@NoSpam.invalid> - 2014-05-28 16:54 +0200
Re: Are Computer able to think? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-25 16:36 -0400
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 18:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Are Computer able to think? |
| Message-ID | <7z4n0dzrld.fsf@example.com> |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > Are Computer(s) able to think? I like to read your opinion. > As a thought experiment, create a very powerful computer, simulate a world with autonomous entities in it, wait for intelligence to evolve. Yes, I think computers could theoretically be capable of thought. Whether they can currently I doubt it. But reading Iain M. Banks will do for the time being. What is thought? A process which reacts to its environment? Is the process part of the environment?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 19:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lltaap$fbo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #30697 |
On Sun, 25 May 2014 18:38:22 +0100 David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote: > visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > > > Are Computer(s) able to think? I like to read your opinion. > > > > As a thought experiment, create a very powerful computer, simulate a > world with autonomous entities in it, wait for intelligence to > evolve. Yes, I think computers could theoretically be capable of > thought. Whether they can currently I doubt it. But reading Iain > M. Banks will do for the time being. There is no algorithm for making algorithms. We are not algorithm. > > What is thought? A process which reacts to its environment? Is the > process part of the environment? -- Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 19:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7zvbstyb50.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #30698 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > > There is no algorithm for making algorithms. We are not algorithm. > How do you know we are not algorithm? Do you think there is something undesirable about being algorithm? What are we? Are we off topic for forth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <llte15$t2g$9@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #30699 |
On Sun, 25 May 2014 19:19:07 +0100 David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > > > > > There is no algorithm for making algorithms. We are not algorithm. > > > > How do you know we are not algorithm? Algorithm can't create algorithm. Algorithms cannot be creative... Do you think there is something > undesirable about being algorithm? No. > What are we? We can execute algorithms alright, but our creativity part is not algorithm. Are we off topic for > forth? Perhaps not ;) > -- Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <llvutr$ulk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30700 |
on 25/05/2014 19:50:09, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 25 May 2014 19:19:07 +0100 > David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote: > >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >> >> > >> > There is no algorithm for making algorithms. We are not algorithm. >> > >> >> How do you know we are not algorithm? > > Algorithm can't create algorithm. Algorithms cannot be creative... Don't you find it odd that you are arguing with David Hume? He may be right, you know, and he (or at least, his namesake) discussed creativity in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding". <quote> But though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find, upon a nearer examination, that it is really confined within very narrow limits, and that all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience. </quote> > > Do you think there is something >> undesirable about being algorithm? > > No. > >> What are we? > > We can execute algorithms alright, but our > creativity part is not algorithm. > > Are we off topic for >> forth? > > Perhaps not ;) >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 20:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7zvbssxr7b.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #30760 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: > Don't you find it odd that you are arguing with David Hume? He may be David Hume is not my real name, I chose it in honour of our great philosopher. I wonder what programming language he would like if he were alive today? I hope he would be a pragmatist like me and select the best one for the job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xgfm98sr6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #30698 |
On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:47:04 -0400, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > We are not algorithm. DNA would say otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 22:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lltk88$t2g$13@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #30712 |
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:31:10 -0400 "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: > On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:47:04 -0400, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > We are not algorithm. > > DNA would say otherwise. I saw mathematical proof that algorithm for making algorithms does not exists back in 1987... It was mathematical logic class , proof is based on that that there is no algorithm for proving some kind of logic formulas. I remember this as it was yesterday. -- Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HaveANiceDay <HaveANiceDay@NoSpam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 16:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lm4tbl$ger$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30712 |
"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: > On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:47:04 -0400, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > We are not algorithm. > > DNA would say otherwise. How could a library (that's what DNA is, AFAIK, NOT an OS) tell you what you are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 16:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xgfni6a06zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #30697 |
On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:38:22 -0400, David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote: > As a thought experiment, create a very powerful computer, simulate a > world with autonomous entities in it, wait for intelligence to > evolve. As a thought experiment, calculate how large our universe is in terms a cube composed of 1Kg lead blocks. Then, calculate how large it is at the atomic level. Then, ask yourself just how could a computer represent such an immensity. The computer would need to be even more immense than what it represents. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web