argh..lots of long words. I cant handle this anymore! haha

well, i'm not sure if that's all that i mean.

terminology aside, as long as we understood eachother, i could just as easily argue about the definition of "thought" with a "specialist" as i could with you.

if there was one clear cut definition of the word or criteria to determine what's necessary to be able to "think", this thread wouldn't exist.

the question in this thread is difficult, not because none of us are philosophers or scientists, but because "thought" is a subjective notion.

it's also difficult because we humans think we're superior beings, above all else.

we like to think ourselves superior beings. we're ****ing ego-maniacs.

read back through the responses, nearly everyone appears to have first decided that computer's can't think, and then came up with reasons why. whereas i think we should first ask questions to arrive at an answer.

but we wouldn't understand each other. i could as much argue about thought as someone untrained in maths could argue about algebraic k-theory, it's really that specialist

no, terminology does not replace argument, except in the trivial

"subjective" things, whatever that means, can of course be argued about, but you have to understand each other, which i say is difficult without a lot of leg work

before we ask questions we have to be sure the questions are meaningful, which again goes to understanding, see above blah blah blah

i don't agree with that.

algebra is, as science, bound by specific rules and laws that defines it and it's application.

of course someone untrained in maths couldn't argue algebraic theory.

what the **** kind of specialist are we talking about with regards to this debate, anyway? a "thought" specialist?

anyone can argue philosophy, and that's what we're doing here.

a neurologist might argue from a scientific, biological point of view, knowing and understanding terms, processes, known facts about the brain and it's mechanics that i wouldn't know.

but i don't believe that "thought" necessarily comes down to simply neurology and science.

and thus the argument becomes philosophical again, which is what the argument is.

as long as all parties understand terminology used (which obviously can happen when "laymen" discuss philosophy - see euphoriamorning's last post), i don't see what the problem is with philosophical debate.

it is important to ask meaningful questions but i'd like to know what criteria anyone is expected to use when determining whether or not a question is "meaningful".

as recreation, yes, as we do here.

but usefully? no.

we're floundering about as much as if we were talking about algebraic k-theory (which isn't really algebra, more topology). the only difference from maths in it's inaccesibility is the subjects of philosophy are experienced to some degree by everyone, we all "think", for instance.

oh, and maths isn't really a science. it's not empirical