Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Can a computer work anything out?

Reply
Thread Tools

Can a computer work anything out?

 
 
Immortalist
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 15, 11:23*am, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>


Do you mean computers as they are now or do you mean all computers at
all times in the future evolution of information processing devices?
If the later then humans have no goals or intentionality? Maybe you
should produce a genuine case of information processing with a goal,
as animals and humans do it, as a standard which you can judge against
current information processing devices.

> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
> is this? I will tell you.
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>
> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
>
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
> WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
> them so!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 16, 4:23*am, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
> No.


Is there any end of subjects that you know absolutely nothing about?
Your ignorance is astoundingly broad and deep.

Mark.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Davej
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 15, 1:23*pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Can computers work anything out?


Here's an idea -- stop blathering nonsense when you are completely
ignorant of a topic.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Errol
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 15, 8:23*pm, John Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".


Not strictly true. Computers have buffers and pipes for instructions
and operands. Some computers preload the next instruction or even
predict it. When the buffers are flushed is more like a last stop or
termination. Some computers multithread several programs at the same
time for efficiency. This is analogous to watching tv and reading a
book at the same time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ZerkonXXXX
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:

> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is >>make..<


Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.

The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
intent.

Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
the intention to 'make' (etc)?

If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used with
intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make' noise and
'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a person is
using the hammer, not the hammer itself.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marshall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 16, 6:25*am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the spaces between JJ's words have significance in that he
> imagines closure, a fill-in-the-gaps-with-meaning thing - something like
> the space between cartoon panels.


I dispute the claim that JJ employs words. A sequence
of letters isn't a word; a set of flowers isn't a bouquet.
These forms do not arise as a summation of the individual
properties of the set. I am certain he himself would agree.


Marshall
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
Mark Earnest wrote:
> "John Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:h3l75k$mpp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
>> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>>
>> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
>> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
>> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
>> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
>> is this? I will tell you.
>>
>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>>
>> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
>> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
>> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
>> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
>>
>> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops. WE
>> imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine them
>> so!

>
> We anthropomorphize just about everything else, so why not computers?
> I had my computer complain to me about something more than once.
> Sure computers stop and start, but so does the mind.
>
> And play your computer in chess.
> You will see it think.


what?

> Maybe not as well as we can, so cool your jets.
> That is, for now...
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sargon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2009
On Jul 16, 9:50*am, ZerkonXXXX <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:


> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
> your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.


How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
reasoning is valid.

> The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
> intent.


Yes but this seems like a tautology. That is, any purposeful act is
intentional, and any intentional act is purposeful. I am not ready to
claim the words mean the same thing. Give an example of an intentional
act that is not a purposeful act, or a purposeful act which is not an
intentional act.
>
> Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
> the intention to 'make' (etc)?
>
> If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used with
> intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make' noise and
> 'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a person is
> using the hammer, not the hammer itself.


I do not understand this example.Hammers have a purpose, but do not
"act" with purpose or intention. This is an interesting question. Are
the two words/concepts synonymous?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ghod Dhammit
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2009
"John Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:h3o02n$sub$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
[snip]
> what?


Well, there ya go! You probably ought to have said, "D'oh!", though.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2009
Lord Vetinari wrote:
> "John Jones" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:h3l75k$mpp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
>> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?

>
> Yes, they can.
>
>> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.

>
> I guess you never heard about that chess match, where Garry Kasparov lost
> two out of three games to Deep Blue?
>
>> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
>> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
>> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
>> is this? I will tell you.
>>
>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>>
>> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
>> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
>> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
>> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
>>
>> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops. WE
>> imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine them
>> so!

>
> Hi, shitforbrains! You shouldn't make it so painfully obvious that you know
> nothing at all about computers.
>
>


Are you that **** from altatheisst
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Branch can't get to internet, can't ping anything but ethernet at main site. td Cisco 9 04-24-2006 03:29 PM
Can't connect to local machine with anything except IE Other browsers can't connect without password Otis Mukinfus ASP .Net 3 07-08-2005 03:54 AM
Computer wont boot up from anything Saddles Computer Support 14 05-01-2005 02:34 PM
Re: Corrupted CD data - if Isobuster can't recover it, is there anything that can? dadiOH Computer Support 0 10-23-2004 05:32 PM
Cannot get display on computer to display anything Powerbook Computer Support 5 02-26-2004 12:30 AM



Advertisments