Thanks for your reply. However, I still think we can do it. Why do we think that such inventions are impossible. I am just expressing that we are on the road to success(when computers will have human like brains)..Very ue, this is difficult. However,not impossible.
So I request you to look at the possibilities and not worry about the bad sides..I am optimistic,yes but I am being realisticly optimistic...We are on our way to achieving this. With so many brilliant scientists working on this and so much money involved, there is bound to be progress in this direction... Regards, Jitesh Dundas On 5/27/10, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 5/26/10 18:13 , Kevin Wright wrote: >> So the uselessness of this conversation is now predicated on the >> ability of computers to achieve sentience? >> > It's true that this thread is one of the quirkiest, still it's amusing > and gives somes hint. > BTW, Jitesh, there's an email that you sent as a reply to my post, and > perhaps you sent only to me as I didn't see here on the list. > > The point is interesting because, even though I think that Jitesh is > really too optimistic in his opinion about AI, he's forcing us to > define how "intelligent" has to do with software design. Indeed, there > are many kinds of "intelligence" for the humans and not all of them > are relevant to software development. But, generically speaking, the > word comes from the latin "intelligere" which means "to understand". > The whole point in software design is to describe with a formal > language a set of things to do. The thing has evolved through further > abstractions and today we're striving to have that formal language as > close as possible to the specifications (see TDD, BDD, DDD). Given > that, the fundamental ability for writing software is undertstanding > the customer needs - that is, it's a typical human and communication > skill. The greater chances for a project to fail in most cases aren't > related to technology, but to communications. Thus, an "intelligent > android" that wanted to develop software should really and completely > understand ("intelligere") the human language, together with context. > That is: either the android is intelligent as a human being, or it's > useless for software design. That's why emulating a rat's brain > doesn't impress me in this context. > > - -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people > [email protected] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkv9b2sACgkQeDweFqgUGxdMpACfQTeI8qmUWJ2kLg086MKMBE70 > ahQAn0sIWg4JhomNfEctPjFvLTIjVY6K > =dY7F > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
