> 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.

> 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.