On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
> > It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that
>> machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to
>> construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game.
> No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no
> difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference
> between thinking and imitation thinking.
Incorrect about what? Are you saying that Turing asserted that machines
could think, or that if we could not tell the difference between a machine
and a living person that means there is no difference?
> > I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that
>> says THANK YOU.
> And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says "THANK YOU" to the
> 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much
> thought into the message as the trash can did.
Absolutely. The repetition makes it...automatic, and therefore
disingenuous, mechanical. Unconscious.
> John K Clark
> Hi Craig,
> John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.
Nah, his point is a conflation of appearances and reality. Like this
sentence. It is not a thought. It is not speaking. I am using these empty
forms to communicate my thought, my speaking. He is saying that if my
computer posts these words without me typing them in then it must mean
something just because nobody can tell the difference. It's the same as
saying that a glass of water must be the same as a glass of distilled
vinegar because they look the same.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at