6 ms·
I write software that is far less complex and I consider it to be "thinking" while it is working through multiple possible permutations of output and selecting
by hattmall 1y ago
I write software that is far less complex and I consider it to be "thinking" while it is working through multiple possible permutations of output and selecting the best one. Unless you rigidly define thinking, processing, computing, it's reasonable to use them interchangeably.
- emodendroket 1y agoTo borrow a line from Dijkstra, the claim seems a bit like saying that a submarine is swimming.
- gkbrk 1y agoI think most people would agree that submarines are swimming.
- isaacremuant 1y agoNo. Cars don't walk. Submarines don't swim. You can call it navigation if you want but words have meaning. > to move through water by moving the body or parts of the body.
- hackinthebochs 1y agoSpinning propellers is "moving parts of the [submarines] body"
- isaacremuant 1y agoNo they aren't. Of course you cans also call it's sonar eyes but it isn't. Anthropomorphizing cars doesn't make them humans either.
- hackinthebochs 1y agoWhy would you think body only refers to flesh?
- emodendroket 1y agoEven if I take the more expansive possible interpretation of “body” typically applied to vehicles, the propeller on the back of it isn’t part of the “body” and the “body” of a submarine is rigid and immobile. Is this an intellectual exercise for you or have you ever in your life heard someone say something like “the submarine swam through the water”? It’s so ridiculous I would be shocked to see it outside of a story intended for children or an obvious nonnative speaker of English.
- hackinthebochs 1y ago>the propeller on the back of it isn’t part of the “body” and the “body” of a submarine is rigid and immobile. That's a choice to limit the meaning of the term to the rigid/immobile parts of the external boundary of an object. It's not obviously the correct choice. Presumably you don't take issue with people saying planes fly. The issue of submarines swimming seems analogous. >Is this an intellectual exercise for you or have you ever in your life heard someone say something like “the submarine swam through the water”? I don't think I've ever had a discussion about submarines with anyone, outside of the OceanGate disaster. But this whole approach to the issue seems misguided. With terms like this we should ask what the purpose behind the term is, i.e. it's intension (the concept), not the incidental extension of the term (the collection of things it applies to at some point in time). When we refer to something swimming, we mean that it is moving through water under its own power. The reference to "body" is incidental.
- emodendroket 1y agoWhich parts of the car does a "body shop" service?
- hackinthebochs 1y ago
- emodendroket 1y agoI think the opposite. In fact I (and Dijstrka) thought that was so obvious I didn’t feel the need to elaborate on how obviously absurd it was.