Correct. But computers do learn. Therefore they can't be inanimate.
And who fooled you into believing that humans and computers are different things?SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:51 pm Less technical people are fooled into believing that Computers are more like Humans than they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_ ... scription)
Yes. The thermostat in my home has know-how. That is why it can keep the temperature regulated.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:51 pm Does the thermostat in your home "Know" how to keep the temperature regulated?
The thermostat has an effective mechanism to actuate change. Nothing that can actuate change it is inanimate.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:51 pm Or is it actually something else when talking about Inanimate objects?
The fact that Babbage's Analytical Engine was to be entirely mechanical will help us rid ourselves of a superstition. Importance is often attached to the fact that modern digital computers are electrical, and the nervous system is also electrical. Since Babbage's machine was not electrical, and since all digital computers are in a sense equivalent, we see that this use of electricity cannot be of theoretical importance. ... If we wish to find such similarities we should look rather for mathematical analogies of function --Alan Turing (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59. In J. Copeland (Ed.), The essential Turing (pp. 433–460). Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 446.