23 January 2011

Blog Entry #2: On Computers

Commentary

See what I have to say about Shena's and Vince's work.

References

Aristotle. (1994). On plants. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of aristotle (pp. 1252-1271). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

On Computers

Intelligence and understanding is found in humans and computers; but while in some humans it is clearly manifest, in computers it is programmed and unnatural. For before we can assert the presence of true understanding in computers, a long inquiry must be held as to whether computers possess a soul a true capacity to understand. This inquiry, however, will not be performed here.

Some computers contain within them graphics processing units integrated into the motherboard. Some have stand-alone or third-party graphics processing units. Some have even two or three, and maybe one is used independently as a PhysX engine. Some components of the computer are simple, such as a radiated heatsink-cooled northbridge and an air-cooled southbridge; some are more complex, like a thermoelectrically-cooled processing core. Computers possess other various parts as well: SATA cables, power supplies, and peripheral ports.

Just as in the human, so also in the computer there are homogeneous parts: the case of the computer is like the skin of the human; the processor is like the brain; the data buses and cables are like nerves and veins; but that's pretty much it. If a computer had a stomach, it would probably be the hard drive, but that metaphor is a bit of a stretch, and so you should probably ignore it.

I suppose I could carry on forever, but alas, I am not a philosopher, but merely a student, a blogger no less, and this farce is but a travesty of the great works from minds much keener than mine.

Image courtesy of Corbis Images

So don't take me too seriously :)

2 comments:

  1. While I was partially impressed with Aristotle's longevity in talking about plants, I also couldn't believe how long he wrote about them, haha. But in a way, it pointed out how versatile and adaptable plants are, just like animals. Yet he already said he believed plants to have partial souls, so the gigantic plant lesson seemed partially unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael, I like the comparison of computer parts to human parts, but I am not sure that it is valid. You could make a similar argument for automobiles then. They have different models, and they are made up of many different parts. For example, the engine would be like the heart, the wheels and axles are the legs and feet, etc. I think most people would agree (except some car nuts) that cars do not have souls.

    ReplyDelete