 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:34
|
|
But you just said this wasn't about him being a philosopher (ie, contributing to philosophy).
That quote, once again, doesn't show that he had any interest in philosophy.
He was a mathematician and scientist, and his work has since been applied with and adopted by philosophers, but this does not mean that he was a philosopher (or perhaps he was, and this just shows that we do not need philosophers who do nothing but think), and most importantly, it doesn't say he had an interest in philosophy.
He was a mathematician interested in computing machinery, and also interested in supporting constructs necessary for that (ie, symbolic logic).
He's repeatedly claimed he wasn't a philosopher, and has also expressed contempt for the modern "philosophers" just as I do.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
But you just said this wasn't about him being a philosopher (ie, contributing to philosophy).
He's repeatedly claimed he wasn't a philosopher, and has also expressed contempt for the modern "philosophers" just as I do. |
I think you haven't read Hodges' biography of Turing, have you?
I also think you're using a definition of philosophy that moves to suit your purposes.
To be interested in does not= to be a practitioner of what one is interested in.
Do you have an interest in music?
Does this then mean you are a musician by profession?
Do you have an interest in food?
Are you then a farmer, chef, nutritionist or dietician?
One may have an interest in philosophy and not describe oneself as a philosopher- one may even contribute to a journal of philosophy, as Turing did, and still not consider oneself a philosopher.
'This is the core of the problem Turing faced, and the same problem faces Artificial Intelligence research today. Turing's underlying argument was that the human brain must somehow be organised for intelligence, and that the organisation of the brain must be realisable as a finite discrete-state machine.
The implications of this view were exposed to a wider circle in his famous paper, "Computing Machinery
and Intelligence," which appeared in Mind in October 1950.
The appearance of this paper, Turing's first foray into a journal of philosophy, was stimulated by his discussions at Manchester University with Michael Polanyi.
It also reflects the general sympathy of Gilbert Ryle, editor of Mind, with Turing's point of view.
Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership and should be read in its original; it has often been reprinted. Not surprisingly, the paper has attracted
many critiques. Not all commentators note the careful explication of computability which opens the paper, with an emphasis on the concept of the universal machine.
This explains why if mental function can be achieved by any finite discrete state machine, then the same effect can be achieved by programming a computer (Turing 1950b, p. 442).
(Note, however, that Turing makes no claim that the nervous system should resemble a digital computer in its structure.) '
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by notyoueither
I am rethinking my views on Harper. I think he'll bomb in the Maritimes, but I don't see a lot of viable alternatives as leader. ? |
Its possible that the Conservatives will maintain their status in Atlantic provinces if Harper makes a point of not saying anything too controversial. There are seats that have been PC strongholds for a long long time. If the incumbent PCs run for the "new" party, I could see the conservatives holding on to their 10 or so Atlantic Canadian seats in spite of their leader.
Belinda has the advantage of little negative political baggage but I have not seen enough of her to assess whther she has the skills to be an effective leader
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002 time: 22:34
|
|
I'm actually surprised that this $100mil has caused such a fuss... I guess it's more just the fact that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. There've been so many instances of corruption that aggregated together...
For me, the huge problem is the gun registry. $2bil. TWO BILLION. That's unacceptable.
However, I'm still wary of the Tories. Ah, we'll see how it goes.
AND a sub-question: I know some folks who got something in the mail from Elections Canada that they had to fill out and send back. Was this voter registration? Is it true that there was a deadline for sending them back? I know about the whole "automatic voter list" thingy in Canada, but I'm unsure as to what exactly a recently-legal person has to do in order to vote. Anyone?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by molly bloom
I also think you're using a definition of philosophy that moves to suit your purposes. |
I'm using a specific definition for a reason, because I realize that "philosophy" can be generalized to a great many things. In particular, I'm referring to people who proclaim themselves to be philosophers and study things like -- I don't know -- philosophy, rather than another field.
quote: To be interested in does not= to be a practitioner of what one is interested in. |
Indeed, but you've never shown that Turing has an "interest in" Philosophy. Showing links saying things he's done have contributed to philosophy does not show he's interested in philosophy. All it shows is what he's done is useful in many fields, not just the one he was speaking about.
quote: Do you have an interest in music?
Does this then mean you are a musician by profession?
Do you have an interest in food?
Are you then a farmer, chef, nutritionist or dietician? |
I have an interest in music, and I am a musician. 
I don't have an interest in food, and I'm not a chef, etc. 
quote: One may have an interest in philosophy and not describe oneself as a philosopher- one may even contribute to a journal of philosophy, as Turing did, and still not consider oneself a philosopher. |
You're skirting around the fundamental issue that you've never shown he has an interest in philosophy. His work has since been used by philosophers and published in philosophy journals, but this does not mean he took interest in, say, Plato...
quote: This is the core of the problem Turing faced, and the same problem faces Artificial Intelligence research today. Turing's underlying argument was that the human brain must somehow be organised for intelligence, and that the organisation of the brain must be realisable as a finite discrete-state machine.
The implications of this view were exposed to a wider circle in his famous paper, "Computing Machinery
and Intelligence," which appeared in Mind in October 1950.
The appearance of this paper, Turing's first foray into a journal of philosophy, was stimulated by his discussions at Manchester University with Michael Polanyi.
It also reflects the general sympathy of Gilbert Ryle, editor of Mind, with Turing's point of view.
Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership and should be read in its original; it has often been reprinted. Not surprisingly, the paper has attracted
many critiques. Not all commentators note the careful explication of computability which opens the paper, with an emphasis on the concept of the universal machine.
This explains why if mental function can be achieved by any finite discrete state machine, then the same effect can be achieved by programming a computer (Turing 1950b, p. 442).
(Note, however, that Turing makes no claim that the nervous system should resemble a digital computer in its structure.) ' |
Your own article states very clearly that "Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership", which is why it was his first article published in a more mainstream journal.
You've still yet to connect the dots to show he has an interest in philosophy. I would imagine this is a rather important part of any argument claiming he has an interest in philosophy. Showing that a paper he wrote was published in a philosophy journal doesn't show he was interested in philosophy...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
What kind of logic is that? ...
So he chose Mind, for a wider audience. Something which molly's article says quite literally. |
Better than yours- he published a paper in a journal of philosophy because he mistook it for Popular Mechanics, or Sheepfarmers' Monthly, hmm?
Yes, for an audience familiar with philosophical concepts such as what constitutes consciousness, how may consciousness be differentiated between machines and humans if it exists in both, and so on he publishes in a journal where such familiar ideas are debated.
If you imagine that consciousness is not a proper subject for philosophical debate, or has not been, then you are demonstrating an obtuseness which will not be penetrated by even small words spoken slowly or spelt out in big letters. Try Rene Descartes, for instance- cogito, ergo sum.
Did Turing ever say anything about his feet?
Shall we then assume he had no interest in wearing footwear?
He does not have to say explicitly:
'I am interested in philosophy'
to be interested in many different aspects of logic, reason, thought, morality, all of which can usefully covered by the umbrella term philosophy.
That is, philosophy which is the pursuit of wisdom, or of the knowledge of things and their causes (natural, moral, et cetera), the study of ultimate realities and general principles, well I could go on, but try to pretend that Turing wasn't interested in any of those things when he was talking with Wittgenstein or trying to define consciousness.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|