[ddt]

My big takeaway from the Chomsky quote is that it's useless to ask if computers can think because one of the fundamental properties we associate with thinking is some biological/spiritual aspect. For a computer to "think", we'd need to redefine what we mean by think. And if we have to redefine what it means to think, why bother hailing it as an accomplishment to make a computer "think". The properties are incredibly important to our understanding of the world. The fact that we have different words for "think", "compute", and "calculate" gives some insight into the value we assign to the distinction as a culture. If those differentiations didn't exist, the problem of simulating cognition wouldn't change. What would change is our perception of the problem. If thinking, calculation, and computation all share the same word, it becomes a question of degrees of "thinking" rather than substantially different processes.

I don't think Chomsky is trying to elevate certain things outside of the laws of nature. He's describing how what we choose to differentiate changes our fundamental perceptions of those things. Submarines could "swim". They could also "read", but those words have a very specific set of properties associated with them.

[sampo]

> we associate with thinking is some biological/spiritual aspect

Well I don't.

> The fact that we have different words for "think", "compute", and "calculate"

Also my native language (Finnish) doesn't have separate words for "compute" and calculate". Both are covered by "laskea". (Also "suorittaa" is used, but that is "execute".)

[pbhjpbhj]

So the words for a calculator (small electronic device used to do mathematics, usually arithmetic) and the word for computer (like a general purpose desktop computer, the thing that runs and OS like Apple OS X or Microsoft Windows 8) are the same? I'm assuming that you do have a different word for think though as you didn't mention that.

What about arvioida? Would that be used for compute?

This might be an instances where the Sapir Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir_Whorf) comes in to play. The idea would be that you don't consider computing and calculating to differ from thought because the [primary] language you use [or grew up using] doesn't make that differentiation.

[sampo]

> So the words for a calculator ... and the word for computer ... are the same?

No no. We have laskin ("calculator") for calculator and tietokone ("data machine") for computer.

If you don't know any other language than English, you'll be surprised about how many different ways different languages have come up with for words for modern things, like the computer. The etymology does not necessarily resemble that of the English language.

> arvioida

That is "to estimate".

[pbhjpbhj]

Thanks for your informative response.

Actually, I think that just knowing English well one can see the same effect as knowing a few other languages - the etymologies of words being dispersed amongst Latin, Greek, Scandinavian, Germanic and French origins (as a first pass, of course there's influence from many, many languages) makes it easy to see how many words can develop for the same thing, each having a subtle twist of meaning. Like the use in English of beef/cow for cooked meat vs. the animal.

The only words I know for a computer are computer (English derived from a name for a person who calculates values), ordinateur (French, origin is Latin to do with organising/ordering; close to English "ordinator"), cyfrifadur (sp? Welsh, origin is account-er; similar derivation as English), and rechner (German, a cognate with English "reckoner") ... but in these cases I think everyone normally uses just "computer" or a transliteration of it like in Kswahili ("kompyuta", don't quote me on that spelling!).

[sampo]

Well in addition to Finnish "tietokone" (data machine, or information machine), there is at least Swedish (also Norwegian) "datamaskin" (data machine), nowadays usually shortened to "datorn", and Turkish "bilgisayar" (information counter).

So form of "computer" seems to be the choice in a large number of languages, though.

[SoftwareMaven]

But you do have a different word for "think", right?

Google Translate shows multiple, but these three seem most applicable:

  ajatella: propose, consider, think about, weigh, cogitate, think
  miettiä: think about, think, consider, reflect, contemplate, ponder
  luulla: think, believe, suppose, imagine, expect, suspect

The difference between "think" and "compute" is the important distinction being made, and I tend to agree that moving the goal posts does nothing to help decide whether a computer is really capable of thought.

[sampo]

> But you do have a different word for "think", right?

Yes, sure.