How do I join a political party in Canada?

[Asher]

But you just said this wasn't about him being a philosopher (ie, contributing to philosophy).

That quote, once again, doesn't show that he had any interest in philosophy.

He was a mathematician and scientist, and his work has since been applied with and adopted by philosophers, but this does not mean that he was a philosopher (or perhaps he was, and this just shows that we do not need philosophers who do nothing but think), and most importantly, it doesn't say he had an interest in philosophy.

He was a mathematician interested in computing machinery, and also interested in supporting constructs necessary for that (ie, symbolic logic).

He's repeatedly claimed he wasn't a philosopher, and has also expressed contempt for the modern "philosophers" just as I do.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher
But you just said this wasn't about him being a philosopher (ie, contributing to philosophy).


He's repeatedly claimed he wasn't a philosopher, and has also expressed contempt for the modern "philosophers" just as I do.

I think you haven't read Hodges' biography of Turing, have you?

I also think you're using a definition of philosophy that moves to suit your purposes.

To be interested in does not= to be a practitioner of what one is interested in.

Do you have an interest in music?

Does this then mean you are a musician by profession?

Do you have an interest in food?

Are you then a farmer, chef, nutritionist or dietician?

One may have an interest in philosophy and not describe oneself as a philosopher- one may even contribute to a journal of philosophy, as Turing did, and still not consider oneself a philosopher.

'This is the core of the problem Turing faced, and the same problem faces Artificial Intelligence research today. Turing's underlying argument was that the human brain must somehow be organised for intelligence, and that the organisation of the brain must be realisable as a finite discrete-state machine.

The implications of this view were exposed to a wider circle in his famous paper, "Computing Machinery
and Intelligence," which appeared in Mind in October 1950.
The appearance of this paper, Turing's first foray into a journal of philosophy, was stimulated by his discussions at Manchester University with Michael Polanyi.

It also reflects the general sympathy of Gilbert Ryle, editor of Mind, with Turing's point of view.
Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership and should be read in its original; it has often been reprinted. Not surprisingly, the paper has attracted
many critiques. Not all commentators note the careful explication of computability which opens the paper, with an emphasis on the concept of the universal machine.
This explains why if mental function can be achieved by any finite discrete state machine, then the same effect can be achieved by programming a computer (Turing 1950b, p. 442).
(Note, however, that Turing makes no claim that the nervous system should resemble a digital computer in its structure.) '

[Agathon]

Nice one Molly. I don't know much about Turing myself. Way too modern for me.

Asher is pwned.


And will the last Canadian to leave the tory party please turn out the lights.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I am rethinking my views on Harper. I think he'll bomb in the Maritimes, but I don't see a lot of viable alternatives as leader. ?

Its possible that the Conservatives will maintain their status in Atlantic provinces if Harper makes a point of not saying anything too controversial. There are seats that have been PC strongholds for a long long time. If the incumbent PCs run for the "new" party, I could see the conservatives holding on to their 10 or so Atlantic Canadian seats in spite of their leader.

Belinda has the advantage of little negative political baggage but I have not seen enough of her to assess whther she has the skills to be an effective leader

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice one Molly. I don't know much about Turing myself. Way too modern for me.

Asher is pwned.


And will the last Canadian to leave the tory party please turn out the lights.

A great lost opportunity, that not all Wittgenstein's discussions with Turing were recorded, only those relating to mathematical/philosophical concepts.

Imagine, that Wittgenstein discussing mathematics, and him a philosopher.

The cheek.

I think Asher was displaying distinct kenobist tendencies in his argument- a Western Canada affectation? -perhaps a refresher course in logic and language might help him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by molly bloom


A great lost opportunity, that not all Wittgenstein's discussions with Turing were recorded, only those relating to mathematical/philosophical concepts.

Imagine, that Wittgenstein discussing mathematics, and him a philosopher.

The cheek.

I think Asher was displaying distinct kenobist tendencies in his argument- a Western Canada affectation? -perhaps a refresher course in logic and language might help him.

You're forgetting that Wittgenstein started out as an engineer and became interested in philosophy because he wondered about the foundations of mathematics.

The locals near his holiday shack in Ireland thought he was a magician who had strange powers over birds.

He's also a gay hero.

[Agathon]

You have to love Poly - from Belinda Stronach to Wittgenstein in less than ten moves.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
Its possible that the Conservatives will maintain their status in Atlantic provinces if Harper makes a point of not saying anything too controversial. There are seats that have been PC strongholds for a long long time. If the incumbent PCs run for the "new" party, I could see the conservatives holding on to their 10 or so Atlantic Canadian seats in spite of their leader.

Belinda has the advantage of little negative political baggage but I have not seen enough of her to assess whther she has the skills to be an effective leader

I think it will come down to how many people cling to something stupid he said a couple years ago, and how many think that it is time for a change. I'm not enamored with Harper either, but there has to be a large enough threat to the Liberals that Martin can use the threat of defeat to ram home some reforms, which I think he is serious about.

With Harper and a strong contingent of Conservatives (~100 MPS) I think we could get a pretty good government out of Martin. I am less sure if the Conservatives pick a leader who doesn't have any idea how Ottawa works, and who hasn't spent as much time working on the subject of reforming Ottawa.

It is seeming to me that Harper's time is coming. Whatever my misgivings about him, he has worked toward the goal of reforming Ottawa for the last 20 years. Martin seems to agree that it is needed. It might be ironic that Harper could be in opposition when it is accomplished, but I can't think of many people who would be a better goad to get Martin and the Liberals to act, and I can't imagine anyone better than a Liberal to get some of the vested interests to cooperate.

[cinch]

I'm actually surprised that this $100mil has caused such a fuss... I guess it's more just the fact that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. There've been so many instances of corruption that aggregated together...

For me, the huge problem is the gun registry. $2bil. TWO BILLION. That's unacceptable.

However, I'm still wary of the Tories. Ah, we'll see how it goes.

AND a sub-question: I know some folks who got something in the mail from Elections Canada that they had to fill out and send back. Was this voter registration? Is it true that there was a deadline for sending them back? I know about the whole "automatic voter list" thingy in Canada, but I'm unsure as to what exactly a recently-legal person has to do in order to vote. Anyone?

[Fake Boris]

It probably would be better to follow the instructions, but you can always add your name to the registry even a few days before the election. In this case, you would have to follow a procedure with witnesses, etc.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I also think you're using a definition of philosophy that moves to suit your purposes.

I'm using a specific definition for a reason, because I realize that "philosophy" can be generalized to a great many things. In particular, I'm referring to people who proclaim themselves to be philosophers and study things like -- I don't know -- philosophy, rather than another field.

To be interested in does not= to be a practitioner of what one is interested in.

Indeed, but you've never shown that Turing has an "interest in" Philosophy. Showing links saying things he's done have contributed to philosophy does not show he's interested in philosophy. All it shows is what he's done is useful in many fields, not just the one he was speaking about.

Do you have an interest in music?

Does this then mean you are a musician by profession?

Do you have an interest in food?

Are you then a farmer, chef, nutritionist or dietician?

I have an interest in music, and I am a musician.
I don't have an interest in food, and I'm not a chef, etc.

One may have an interest in philosophy and not describe oneself as a philosopher- one may even contribute to a journal of philosophy, as Turing did, and still not consider oneself a philosopher.

You're skirting around the fundamental issue that you've never shown he has an interest in philosophy. His work has since been used by philosophers and published in philosophy journals, but this does not mean he took interest in, say, Plato...

This is the core of the problem Turing faced, and the same problem faces Artificial Intelligence research today. Turing's underlying argument was that the human brain must somehow be organised for intelligence, and that the organisation of the brain must be realisable as a finite discrete-state machine.

The implications of this view were exposed to a wider circle in his famous paper, "Computing Machinery
and Intelligence," which appeared in Mind in October 1950.
The appearance of this paper, Turing's first foray into a journal of philosophy, was stimulated by his discussions at Manchester University with Michael Polanyi.

It also reflects the general sympathy of Gilbert Ryle, editor of Mind, with Turing's point of view.
Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership and should be read in its original; it has often been reprinted. Not surprisingly, the paper has attracted
many critiques. Not all commentators note the careful explication of computability which opens the paper, with an emphasis on the concept of the universal machine.
This explains why if mental function can be achieved by any finite discrete state machine, then the same effect can be achieved by programming a computer (Turing 1950b, p. 442).
(Note, however, that Turing makes no claim that the nervous system should resemble a digital computer in its structure.) '

Your own article states very clearly that "Turing's 1950 paper was meant for a wide readership", which is why it was his first article published in a more mainstream journal.

You've still yet to connect the dots to show he has an interest in philosophy. I would imagine this is a rather important part of any argument claiming he has an interest in philosophy. Showing that a paper he wrote was published in a philosophy journal doesn't show he was interested in philosophy...

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
A great lost opportunity, that not all Wittgenstein's discussions with Turing were recorded, only those relating to mathematical/philosophical concepts.

Imagine, that Wittgenstein discussing mathematics, and him a philosopher.

The cheek.

I think Asher was displaying distinct kenobist tendencies in his argument- a Western Canada affectation? -perhaps a refresher course in logic and language might help him.

If anyone needs a course in logic, it would be the two people here who seem to think an argument which never addresses Turing's interest in philosophy, or lack thereof, somehow proves he's interested in philosophy.

I've posted in Philosophy threads and talked with philosophers, so I am suddenly interested in philosophy?

[Fake Boris]

Showing that a paper he wrote was published in a philosophy journal doesn't show he was interested in philosophy...

It says thet he wrote it FOR a philosophy journal, which pretty much demonstrates his interest on the topic.

What kind of proof do you expect? Shall we interrogate his dead body to know the answer?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It says thet he wrote it FOR a philosophy journal, which pretty much demonstrates his interest on the topic.

Mind quoting me which part said that?

To me, it reads:

The implications of this view were exposed to a wider circle in his famous paper, "Computing Machinery
and Intelligence," which appeared in Mind in October 1950.

What kind of proof do you expect? Shall we interrogate his dead body to know the answer?

Perhaps some quotes he's made about philosophy? All of the ones I know of are where he's very clear on distancing himself from being a philosopher, all of which included very negative connotations for reasons why he'd want to distance himself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice one Molly. I don't know much about Turing myself. Way too modern for me.

You would be less useless if you understood perhaps the most relevant mind of the last century. He's revolutionized the world, and you don't know much about him? Agathon, dear, being the 1 millionth person to analyze Plato in depth isn't very helpful. If you're going to be a philosopher, study modern things and progress from there.

Turing was also gay, by the way. "Convicted" of homosexuality in 52, was given injections to kill his sex drive, and committed suicide in 54.

He also cracked the Enigma code in WW2...