"The Cambridge Quintet"

Paper Summary:

This paper reviews John Casti's work "The Cambridge Quintet: A Work of Scientific Speculation". It describes Casti's clear bias towards Alan Turing's views and suggests that he did not give Ludwig Wittgenstein the opportunity to argue as strongly as he might. The paper then suggests what Wittgenstein could have been allowed to say in order to strengthen his position.

From the Paper:

"While on the surface the reader's immediate inclination may be to agree in spirit with Wittgenstein, his reliance on such metaphorical terms within the construct of human language is a disingenuous and vacuous platform. The terms he employs that refer to emotion are terms that humans themselves often have difficulty agreeing on both in context and in substance. Upon further reflection the rational reader realizes that a machine, just as any human does, can be taught the textbook definition of these terms which forms the foundation of their use. Yet, beyond such topical conceptions, both humans and machines are likely to vary greatly in both degree and application of how these emotions are conceived and used. In that way, machine logic would be no different than typical human communication patterns in conveying meaning."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Casti, John L. The Cambridge Quintet: A Work of Scientific Speculation. Perseus Books, New York; 1998.

More papers on "The Cambridge Quintet":

• Analytical Essay # 129691 : "The Cambridge Quintet"
• Essay # 86538 : "Wittgenstein's Views on the Mind"
• Analytical Essay # 4992 : "Richard Price's Existentialist "The Ladies' Man"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: