This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hilary Putnam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Hilary Putnam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The description (specification) of the Turing machine does not match the implementation. The description states that it "writes out the sequence '111' after scanning three blank squares and then stopping". The actual machine as written scans three squares in sequence, writing a '1' in any blank square - to ensure the sequence '111' - and then stops.
Trivially, the description as cited can be re-written as: it scans three blank squares, it stops, then it writes out the sequence '111'. This, of course, is ridiculous - it does nothing after it stops. Equally trivially, this flaw can be fixed by putting a comma after the word "squares" and changing "stopping" to "stops".
A Turing machine to perform the corrected specification would be:
State | Input B | Input 1 |
---|---|---|
1 | move right; go to state 2 | move right |
2 | move right; go to state 3 | move right; go to state 1 |
3 | move right; go to state 4 | move right; go to state 1 |
4 | write 1; move right; go to state 5 | write 1; move right; go to state 5 |
5 | write 1; move right; go to state 6 | write 1; move right; go to state 6 |
6 | write 1; halt | write 1; halt |
If you see "write" and "move" as separate actions [which is not the way I've done it all these years, but is certainly one way of doing it] then states 4 and 5 both need to be split into two states.
Also trivially, this is "one way" a Turing machine can be visualized.
Why don't I "be bold" and make the suggested changes? First off, I don't know whether the original author intended to have a correct specification for the given machine or a correct machine for the given specification. Second off, it seems that this article generates strong feelings for some, so I thought I'd socialize this change first. -- Jsdy ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think mentioning the conference was an ok addition on informational grounds. I won't unrevert but maybe someone else can put it back if they think it's appropriate. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The current passage reads:
The first formulation of such a functionalist theory was put forth by Putnam himself. This formulation, which is now called "machine-state functionalism", was inspired by analogies noted by Putnam and others between the mind and theoretical "Turing machines" capable of computing any given algorithm.
But algorithms can't be computed. In simple language, algorithms are recipes, lists of action to take. They don't have to compute anything (although digital or analogue algorithms, and especially those used in digital computers often compute computable functions). One common counter-example of non-computing algorithm is a "bucket of rain water" algorithm. It's a recipe which says that you have to put out bucket every day and collect it in the evening, then measure the rain water in the bucket. It's perfectly fine, as an algorithm, but it doesn't compute anything. If this example is not enough, consider an algorithm of an infinite loop - what does it compute?
However it is true that Turing machines are computing machines, they don't compute algorithms, they execute algorithms. Thus I'd suggest that the sentence be changed to say that the Turing machine computes a computable function (or simply function, if that's too technical), or that it executes an (digital) algorithm (again, digital classification may be too technical). Also, there's no reason for Turing machine to be quoted, it's a mathematical object just like sine curve or equilateral triangle. :) 79.176.121.21 ( talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have read this article several times and it contain great material, but I believe that two little text is about Putnam's pragmatic turn from early 80s to present day. Most of the article is dedicated to his early writings.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I found that Note 9 did not provide the article. Searching for the material I found both a pdf for it at http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf
as well as a working link in the connected Wikipedia page 'Brain in a Vat' http://books.google.it/books?id=h3g3GicFWGoC&hl=en&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Being a newbie, I did not feel confident to make this change myself. Codon3 ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Codon3
This section is clear, but it does not explain to the layperson why Putnam's argument is novel or important when applied to the Mind/Body problem, whereas it is obviously not when applied to pure physics problems, for example phase transitions. For example any physical system which behaves identically to the 3D Ising problem will show the same qualitatative behavior (and universality in general). obviously a person's brain, and their "mind" and general identity remain essentially the same despite the fact that all the molecules in their body are continuously replaced, so their physical Identity is never the same. Even if one were to take the view that one molecule is literally identical to another, so in a sense the molecularly renewed person remains physically the same, this would not imply that 1 extra molecule made the person mentally as well as physically different. For all practical purposes one block of ice is the same as another of similar size. , and qualitatively quite different from the same molecules as liquid water. I don't see the difference from me today and me yesterday, or why Putnam's argument is important or substantially different. Paulhummerman ( talk) 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I hadn't noticed that it already _was_ a featured article.
Out of thousands of leads I've mentally critiqued, this one stands out as a paragon of the form. It actually appears to summarize in an even and succinct form his many contributions, phases, and lines of inquiry (my only hesitation is that this is complex material about which I only know the barest amount). I hereby award my personal gold star to the past contributors. — MaxEnt 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxEnt and Finnusertop: An IP editor has cut the lead radically. I urge them the discuss here rather than by edit summaries and back-and-forth reverting. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
" he moved to Harvard in 1965 with his wife, Ruth Anna Jacobs, who took a "
It seems that toward the end of his life, he became somewhat religious. https://forward.com/culture/14256/spiritual-encounters-of-a-philosopher-of-science-02570/ http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198578/remembering-hilary-putnam-harvard-philosopher-and-religious-jew https://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/hilary-putnam-1926-2016_b_9457774.html https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/hilary-putnam-1926-2016-philosopher-sciences-late-life-return-his-native-judaism Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Putnam did become a religious Jew later in life, and certainly was not an atheist. However, he didn't believe in an afterlife (denial of an afterlife among Jews is quite common) nor did he appear to believe in a personal or a loving God. I would describe him as an agnostic deist.
Something I noticed glancing Putnam's page, was that some of his well known students Alva Noë and Ned Block were missing. I'd also make the recommendation of adding Block and McDowell to his influences, as he cited them as being big influences on him late in his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreamingUrethra ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi article-watchers, I am starting a review of this article for WP:URFA/2020, a task force which looks at featured articles that were promoted before 2016. I have made some edits to the article during my review, and I hope others will review my edits to ensure I did not change the meaning of anything. I also have some questions below:
Those are just some initial thoughts, I look forward to doing a deeper when the above concerns are addressed. Z1720 ( talk) 23:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
very little information on his life in the 1980s and in the 2000sissue is really a problem. There can be a "life ends at tenure" effect with academic biographies; once someone is established in a particular place and any kids are born, the only events that get documented are career events. It's probably too early for statues and roads, but there may be awards or scholarships. I'll look into that. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I added the name "Alan Garfinkel" to the list of Hilary Putnam's students. (PhD 1975, Putnam was principal supervisor) Agarfink ( talk) 00:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Putnam had N doctoral students, including X who worked with Putnam on Y.... That would depend upon having a complete list of his doctoral students, which I haven't been able to turn up, though it's entirely possible that it exists and I've overlooked it. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
By the way: the story of Progressive Labor inside SDS is interesting in its own right, not only at the end when it must have been seen as the sane alternative to Weather. Read about this story some time ago, perhaps in "Radical America" (it's all online). -- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Logical Positivism was the leading philosophy in much of the US (Quine, Sellars, etc.), but in the 1950 in Europe Sartre, Heidegger and Wittgenstein were the big guys.-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
اهتمام Adam hash my ( talk) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hilary Putnam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Hilary Putnam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The description (specification) of the Turing machine does not match the implementation. The description states that it "writes out the sequence '111' after scanning three blank squares and then stopping". The actual machine as written scans three squares in sequence, writing a '1' in any blank square - to ensure the sequence '111' - and then stops.
Trivially, the description as cited can be re-written as: it scans three blank squares, it stops, then it writes out the sequence '111'. This, of course, is ridiculous - it does nothing after it stops. Equally trivially, this flaw can be fixed by putting a comma after the word "squares" and changing "stopping" to "stops".
A Turing machine to perform the corrected specification would be:
State | Input B | Input 1 |
---|---|---|
1 | move right; go to state 2 | move right |
2 | move right; go to state 3 | move right; go to state 1 |
3 | move right; go to state 4 | move right; go to state 1 |
4 | write 1; move right; go to state 5 | write 1; move right; go to state 5 |
5 | write 1; move right; go to state 6 | write 1; move right; go to state 6 |
6 | write 1; halt | write 1; halt |
If you see "write" and "move" as separate actions [which is not the way I've done it all these years, but is certainly one way of doing it] then states 4 and 5 both need to be split into two states.
Also trivially, this is "one way" a Turing machine can be visualized.
Why don't I "be bold" and make the suggested changes? First off, I don't know whether the original author intended to have a correct specification for the given machine or a correct machine for the given specification. Second off, it seems that this article generates strong feelings for some, so I thought I'd socialize this change first. -- Jsdy ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think mentioning the conference was an ok addition on informational grounds. I won't unrevert but maybe someone else can put it back if they think it's appropriate. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The current passage reads:
The first formulation of such a functionalist theory was put forth by Putnam himself. This formulation, which is now called "machine-state functionalism", was inspired by analogies noted by Putnam and others between the mind and theoretical "Turing machines" capable of computing any given algorithm.
But algorithms can't be computed. In simple language, algorithms are recipes, lists of action to take. They don't have to compute anything (although digital or analogue algorithms, and especially those used in digital computers often compute computable functions). One common counter-example of non-computing algorithm is a "bucket of rain water" algorithm. It's a recipe which says that you have to put out bucket every day and collect it in the evening, then measure the rain water in the bucket. It's perfectly fine, as an algorithm, but it doesn't compute anything. If this example is not enough, consider an algorithm of an infinite loop - what does it compute?
However it is true that Turing machines are computing machines, they don't compute algorithms, they execute algorithms. Thus I'd suggest that the sentence be changed to say that the Turing machine computes a computable function (or simply function, if that's too technical), or that it executes an (digital) algorithm (again, digital classification may be too technical). Also, there's no reason for Turing machine to be quoted, it's a mathematical object just like sine curve or equilateral triangle. :) 79.176.121.21 ( talk) 19:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have read this article several times and it contain great material, but I believe that two little text is about Putnam's pragmatic turn from early 80s to present day. Most of the article is dedicated to his early writings.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I found that Note 9 did not provide the article. Searching for the material I found both a pdf for it at http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf
as well as a working link in the connected Wikipedia page 'Brain in a Vat' http://books.google.it/books?id=h3g3GicFWGoC&hl=en&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Being a newbie, I did not feel confident to make this change myself. Codon3 ( talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Codon3
This section is clear, but it does not explain to the layperson why Putnam's argument is novel or important when applied to the Mind/Body problem, whereas it is obviously not when applied to pure physics problems, for example phase transitions. For example any physical system which behaves identically to the 3D Ising problem will show the same qualitatative behavior (and universality in general). obviously a person's brain, and their "mind" and general identity remain essentially the same despite the fact that all the molecules in their body are continuously replaced, so their physical Identity is never the same. Even if one were to take the view that one molecule is literally identical to another, so in a sense the molecularly renewed person remains physically the same, this would not imply that 1 extra molecule made the person mentally as well as physically different. For all practical purposes one block of ice is the same as another of similar size. , and qualitatively quite different from the same molecules as liquid water. I don't see the difference from me today and me yesterday, or why Putnam's argument is important or substantially different. Paulhummerman ( talk) 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I hadn't noticed that it already _was_ a featured article.
Out of thousands of leads I've mentally critiqued, this one stands out as a paragon of the form. It actually appears to summarize in an even and succinct form his many contributions, phases, and lines of inquiry (my only hesitation is that this is complex material about which I only know the barest amount). I hereby award my personal gold star to the past contributors. — MaxEnt 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxEnt and Finnusertop: An IP editor has cut the lead radically. I urge them the discuss here rather than by edit summaries and back-and-forth reverting. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
" he moved to Harvard in 1965 with his wife, Ruth Anna Jacobs, who took a "
It seems that toward the end of his life, he became somewhat religious. https://forward.com/culture/14256/spiritual-encounters-of-a-philosopher-of-science-02570/ http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198578/remembering-hilary-putnam-harvard-philosopher-and-religious-jew https://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/hilary-putnam-1926-2016_b_9457774.html https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/hilary-putnam-1926-2016-philosopher-sciences-late-life-return-his-native-judaism Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Putnam did become a religious Jew later in life, and certainly was not an atheist. However, he didn't believe in an afterlife (denial of an afterlife among Jews is quite common) nor did he appear to believe in a personal or a loving God. I would describe him as an agnostic deist.
Something I noticed glancing Putnam's page, was that some of his well known students Alva Noë and Ned Block were missing. I'd also make the recommendation of adding Block and McDowell to his influences, as he cited them as being big influences on him late in his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreamingUrethra ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi article-watchers, I am starting a review of this article for WP:URFA/2020, a task force which looks at featured articles that were promoted before 2016. I have made some edits to the article during my review, and I hope others will review my edits to ensure I did not change the meaning of anything. I also have some questions below:
Those are just some initial thoughts, I look forward to doing a deeper when the above concerns are addressed. Z1720 ( talk) 23:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
very little information on his life in the 1980s and in the 2000sissue is really a problem. There can be a "life ends at tenure" effect with academic biographies; once someone is established in a particular place and any kids are born, the only events that get documented are career events. It's probably too early for statues and roads, but there may be awards or scholarships. I'll look into that. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I added the name "Alan Garfinkel" to the list of Hilary Putnam's students. (PhD 1975, Putnam was principal supervisor) Agarfink ( talk) 00:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Putnam had N doctoral students, including X who worked with Putnam on Y.... That would depend upon having a complete list of his doctoral students, which I haven't been able to turn up, though it's entirely possible that it exists and I've overlooked it. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
By the way: the story of Progressive Labor inside SDS is interesting in its own right, not only at the end when it must have been seen as the sane alternative to Weather. Read about this story some time ago, perhaps in "Radical America" (it's all online). -- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Logical Positivism was the leading philosophy in much of the US (Quine, Sellars, etc.), but in the 1950 in Europe Sartre, Heidegger and Wittgenstein were the big guys.-- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
اهتمام Adam hash my ( talk) 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)