[jddj]

Interesting.

When I read it I assume that it is a retort to very similar hysterical sentiments to the ones we see today. I don't read it as a sub swimming being as ridiculous as a computer thinking, but rather that the question "is that machine swimming or not?", much like in the robot walking example, isn't particularly valuable.

We don't break a sweat when we say that a robot is walking, because we don't care about walking. We haven't internalised it as the final frontier of humanness. I read the quote as saying that whether a computer can think or not should be as pointless a question as whether or not a robot can "walk".

I'm intrigued enough now to try to hunt down the context.

[vidarh]

I don't think any of what you've written is wrong in terms of how to interpret it,

I just think the context has changed enough that it is more reasonable - whether you agree with them or not - for people to care whether computers think or not, whereas not long ago it would take bizarre misconceptions.

I would also agree that it ought to be pointless, incidentally.

I do find it fascinating to poke into the beliefs and assumptions surrounding it, though.