In article <7amvij$l1e at ux.cs.niu.edu>, rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
>Aaron Boyden <aaron_boyden at banet.net> writes:
>>>In the course of decades of serious effort, nobody has managed to find a
>>to Church's thesis. If that thesis is true, then there is no such thing as
>>intelligence; we're all Turing machines.
>>Sorry, Aaron, but the claim is absurd. Church's thesis is about what
>we would consider to be computation. It is a mathematical thesis
>which says nothing about the real world.
That dude is so utterly full of horseshit,
that is it a waste to even begin to argue.
He is a perfect bio-robot, utterly confused
of his own purpose.
Just to make sure we know what we are talking
Bio-robot: Biological entity,
PROGRAMMED to behave according to a limited set of instructions,
based in morality ["good" and "bad" definitions],
created by the priest
to manipulate your fear and guilt
in order to collect a sin tax.
And we are not even going to open in up for this
monkey dude. Let him compute the rest.
And this definition still stands.
To this very date, there has been no argument
on ANY of it, and it has been repeated nearly
a hundred times on many threads.
Come argue it, my humble suckazoid, "thinking"
he is no different than a machine.
Hey, suxy, what is the difference between you
and a mechanical gadget?
Are you any different than a toilet bowl,
"knowing" to flush the water when they pull
And this is the simpliest example one can possibly