blargh
A system of logic, a perfectly logical machine, is so far from wholly predictable that it cannot, Turing showed, even predict what it can or cannot do, and this when it is functioning perfectly. This truth, which the great comedians seem to have known intuitively, belies the Romantic notion that machines are models of tragic implacability, and it is not surprising to learn that [Buster] Keaton for one was a considerable mechanician.
Doesn't the machine's inability to tell a questioner what it's going to do make its implacability (for its ignorance certainly doesn't change that—for one thing, the predictability of a machine and what it can predict aren't the same) all the more tragic? And while it might not be surprising to learn that Keaton was handy with tools, isn't it a bit of a stretch to claim that that lack of surprise is connected in even the most tenuous fashion to Turing?
Comments
on 2005-12-26 23:25:54.0, dave zacuto commented:
Isn't the implication that its supposed implacability is partially predicated on an over-surety of machine-surety?
and, further, on 2005-12-27 19:45:36.0, Michael commented:
Before even getting to Turing, I'm dubious about the link the author is making between logical machines and mechanical machines.
and, further, on 2005-12-27 19:46:55.0, Michael commented:
Before even getting to Turing, I'm dubious about the link the author is making between logical machines and mechanical machines.
and, further, on 2005-12-27 19:48:44.0, Michael commented:
Before even getting to Turing, I'm dubious about the link the author is making between logical machines and mechanical machines.
and, further, on 2005-12-27 19:57:06.0, ben wolfson commented:
Very dubious indeed.
and, further, on 2005-12-28 11:45:10.0, Joe o commented:
I find it suprising that Keaton was a mechanician. I find it less suprising that a literary critic doesn't understand Godel.
I went to college in the mid-eighties at the school Hugh Kenner taught at. I never took a class with him, but apparently he was a soft talker so it wasn't all that fun.
I have read some of this book . It is very allusive. It made me feel pretty smart to catch the allusions, but the allusions are sufficiently well hidden that the total number of allusions must be ginormous.