On 2014-02-14 6:43 PM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
So unless Lilly is hooked up to a machine that can then rephrase and
recursively refer to Lilly's thoughts, these new restrictions should be
sufficient. Otherwise, I see no reason that a dog-machine combination
shouldn't be allowed to play, though I
On 2/12/2014 12:46 PM, omd wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Nich Del Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:
I
also agree that they can imitate recursion to an even more limited extent.
Well, if a computer program can manage to parse a deeply nested
sentence, I expect it could proceed to
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Nicholas Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:
Otherwise, I see no reason that a dog-machine combination shouldn't be
allowed to play, though I doubt they would do much.
We really need a quote book... :)
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, omd wrote:
I'm somewhat skeptical of the word organism.
If it has to be biological, then just say human, there's no
guarantee hypothetical space aliens or AIs would be considered
organisms anyway. :)
[snip]
/me wonders whether speculating about Tines is too silly for the
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:37 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Nicholas Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:
[An attempt at very simply tightening the restraints against attempting
to
register things that cannot utilize language to communicate their own
ideas.
On 2/12/2014 8:24 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, omd wrote:
I'm somewhat skeptical of the word organism.
If it has to be biological, then just say human, there's no
guarantee hypothetical space aliens or AIs would be considered
organisms anyway. :)
[snip]
/me wonders
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Nich Del Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:
I
also agree that they can imitate recursion to an even more limited extent.
Well, if a computer program can manage to parse a deeply nested
sentence, I expect it could proceed to manipulate it with far more
ease than a
7 matches
Mail list logo
