decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Nitpicks | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
two nitpicks
Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
We don't know whether the chemical reactions in a human brain are algorithms. It
is quite possible that when the mechanisms are worked out we find they are not
analogous to computers at all. But maybe they are. For now we don't know.

I can uphold that people routinely execute thought processes for which there is
no known mathematical algorithm because they require decisions based on
semantics and an element of discretionary judgment. Legal processes to resolve
disputes are an example. The consequences of this fact on computer programming
are very real. These thought processes cannot be replicated by a computer. We
may speculate that in some future we will find a way but for now this is the
current state of technology.

The limitations of the computer hardware are real. There is no component we
could use in a computer which understand semantics. Mathematical algorithms are
required to work around this limitation.

I find interesting this argument showing that the computer can understand
semantics amounts to showing that they analogous to chemical reactions in a
human brains. What does that do to the notion that software is an abstract idea?
What does that do to the notion that software is Speech?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Nitpicks
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
There are also humans that don't stop when they see a STOP
sign. Most of us call them idiots.

When a computer is programmed to issue a "stop" command
when it processes an image of a red octagon with "STOP"
in white letters, IT HAS NO CHOICE. A human does. In some
cases, that fact can be unfortunate.
--------------------
Hard work and sacrifice pays off at some indefinite time in the future.
Laziness pays off today.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Nitpicks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )