Can a computer work anything out?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John Jones, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Mine isn't.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    That's right. In themselves, there are no objects.
    There is an idea that I haven't put out here. I knew that "stops" were
    themselves anthropomorphisms. Sooner or later we must view everything in
    terms of the whole task. But that doesn't mean that we assign the whole
    task to everything.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    These "parameters" are not parameters. They are anthropomorphic
    metaphors for a mechanical process.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #23
  4. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
    stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #24
  5. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    This ignorance extends beyond the ken of knowledge.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #25
  6. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Is it? Why? Why is a big last stop different to a small last stop?
    I dunno. Is that a fact.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #26
  7. John Jones

    Marshall Guest

    "If all X have property Y then how can there be an X with property Y?"

    That's awesome.


    Marshall
     
    Marshall, Jul 19, 2009
    #27
  8. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    That's right. And yes I know. The subtlety of it is this: a "stop" is
    like a "make", in that they are both anthropomorphisms. I presented, but
    DID NOT pitch, my argument on an anthropomorphism, yet I was trying to
    reject anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphically-based presentation of my
    arguments served the presentation, and its good that it's been seen through.
    But we don't want to make a 'causal' link between purpose and intent.
    The link is grammatical I suggest.

    Computer's don't "make" as we understood each other.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #28
  9. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    I'm not sure if you are right. I can't see how an objection against
    reason can appeal to reason as arbiter.
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #29
  10. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Are you getting this?
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #30
  11. John Jones

    Zinnic Guest

    More to the point. How can there be more than one step? To start is to
    stop? Gee! 'if' has a lot to answer for!
     
    Zinnic, Jul 19, 2009
    #31
  12. John Jones

    Marshall Guest

    I'm getting the same thing I always have with you: that you
    have no tiniest understanding of either logic nor whatever
    technical issue it tickles your fancy to propound upon at the
    moment. And that you know that, and prefer it that way.

    That tells me everything I need to know about your posts.
    They are, like the disclaimers on the psychic readings
    say, "for entertainment purposes only."


    Marshall
     
    Marshall, Jul 19, 2009
    #32
  13. John Jones

    ZerkonXXXX Guest

    [GIVEN: It is raining outside]

    Conclusion: It is raining outside. Reason: because someone in the world
    has sinned and Baby Jesus is crying.
    The topic is the computer that 'makes' things or 'calculates' both serve
    a purpose. My question addressed assigning the ability 'to make' without
    an intention 'to make' being possible. So without intention the computer
    can does not 'make' or 'calculate' even though it serves that purpose.

    So your question does not fit this exactly or my question was not well
    put but I'll have a go anyway because they are fun. However, I have to
    revert to the premise of my question, Purposeful act being and act or
    condition of outcome. Intention being the means to this outcome.

    An intentional act is one in which purpose is a potential and so not yet
    realized. If purpose is not realized though the intention of action, the
    action is not purposeful.

    A purposeful act is purpose realized, the nature of the intention then is
    irrelevant.
    The attempt here is to force the purpose seen in outcome away from the
    instrument used to achieve outcome. So hammers do not in themselves
    'have' a purpose, they are made for a purpose which the human user 'has'.
    The purpose of the hammer is in fact the purpose of the user. Even a
    hammer which is designed for the specific purpose of hitting nails can
    never be used this way but used to break rock, the hammer now 'having'
    another purpose.
     
    ZerkonXXXX, Jul 20, 2009
    #33
  14. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Then follow it through. I didn't because I couldn't be asked.
     
    John Jones, Jul 22, 2009
    #34
  15. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    quite right.
     
    John Jones, Jul 22, 2009
    #35
  16. John Jones

    dorayme Guest

    What makes you think anyone here actually knows the answer to this?
     
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2009
    #36
  17. John Jones

    dorayme Guest

    Truly random numbers, now that is an interesting concept. Depending on
    what quite this means, perhaps something justly called a computer could
    do this. Sure, it would not be on the basis of some one simple or even
    one complex set algorithm in the average cpu but perhaps it could have a
    component that emitted things that it could somehow take in as input,
    something that a Geiger counter would start clicking at when held close
    to...
     
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2009
    #37
  18. John Jones

    dorayme Guest

    No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
    "explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
    avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
    numbers at this stage!
    And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?
    No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
    bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
    It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
    understanding something many of us already understand well enough.

    He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
    explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
    might know something about the matter.
     
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2009
    #38
  19. John Jones

    Davej Guest

    Good question. I am amazed that such a vague, meaningless, and idiotic
    question can draw so many responses.
     
    Davej, Jul 24, 2009
    #39
  20. John Jones

    dorayme Guest

    Gulp!

    How about .... er ... how about ... a random number is a number that
    pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.

    oup.
     
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2009
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.