It is strange that you started your comment with "I don't agree". The rest of the comment demonstrates that you do agree.

▲

griffzhowl 6 days ago | parent [-]

To be more clear about why I disagree the cases are parallel:

We know how a submarine moves through water, whether it's "swimming" isn't an interesting question.

We don't know to what extent a machine can reproduce the cognitive functions of a human. There are substantive and significant questions about whether or to what extent a particular machine or program can reproduce human cognitive functions.

So I might have phrased my original comment badly. It doesn't matter if we use the word "thinking" or not, but it does matter if a machine can reproduce the human cognitive functions, and if that's what we mean by the question whether a machine can think, then it does matter.

▲

modeless 6 days ago | parent [-]

"We know how it moves" is not the reason the question of whether a submarine swims is not interesting. It's because the question is mainly about the definition of the word "swim" rather than about capabilities.

> if that's what we mean by the question whether a machine can think

That's the issue. The question of whether a machine can think (or reason) is a question of word definitions, not capabilities. The capabilities questions are the ones that matter.

▲

griffzhowl 6 days ago | parent [-]

> The capabilities questions are the ones that matter.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I also think there's a clear sense in which asking whether machines can think is a question about capabilities, even though we would need a more precise definition of "thinking" to be able to answer it.

So that's how I'd sum it up: we know the capabilities of submarines, and whether we say they're swimming or not doesn't answer any further question about those capabilities. We don't know the capabilities of machines; the interesting questions are about what they can do, and one (imprecise) way of asking that question is whether they can think

▲

modeless 6 days ago | parent [-]

> I also think there's a clear sense in which asking whether machines can think is a question about capabilities, even though we would need a more precise definition of "thinking" to be able to answer it.

The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. It can't be a clear question about capabilities without widespread agreement on a more rigorous definition of the word "think". Dijkstra's point is that the debate about word definitions is irrelevant and a distraction. We can measure and judge capabilities directly.

	▲	griffzhowl 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Dijkstra's point is that the debate about word definitions is irrelevant and a distraction. Agreed, and I've made this point a few times, so it's ironic we're going back and forth about this. > The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. I'm not saying the question is clear. I'm saying there's clearly an interpretation of it as a question about capabilities.