Auditorium Seating Chart Doc

What is laughter.?

What is the purpose of laughter? Why do we laugh? What exactly is laughing? What is the function of laughter?

The box Questions

54 seconds. This is the average time spent per page by the readers of this blog.

then 54 seconds to respond to 4 fundamental questions about the laugh confess dear reader, Dr. Philo has a tough task.

-> As to the purpose, we can already distinguish

- First there is the laugh-expression, laughter "angels" as the kid photographed by Willy Ronis laughing just because that life is beautiful. This laughter accompanies the joy as Spinoza says that the apparent shift to greater perfection. This laugh-demonstration has no purpose: it exists and that's all.

Note that we do not laugh that where vital interests are not at issue: where the seriously requires us to obtain a result, laughter creates a pose. And not only should not be pressed by the vital need to laugh, but it also must consider laughter as human - as strictly human Rabelais said - because laughter that accompanies the joy is the happiness index and man seeks not only to live, but he also wants to live well (Aristotle).

- There is also laughter penalty: it is he who sends a message. It's mocking laughter, laughter which penalizes ridiculous.

-> Here we can examine the source of laughter, laughable ,

Doctor Philo found in his wallet, the book of Bergson - Laughter ( Test the meaning of the comic ): there is a metaphysics of laughter that deserves a little more than 54 seconds.

According to Bergson, the joke comes from something made by a caricatured human fact. This is something that has become stiff and mechanical, which is mismatched short compared to the flexibility and efficiency action. The gibberish, the gesture that is repeated without reason, the verbal tic, a comedian like Julie Ferrier has maximized (see for example his singing teacher here).

We laugh because this repetition, this mechanical character of behavior gives us an image of what would matter if the man takes it home on the mind, began to do mechanically what his intelligence done with the flexibility of the invention.

Laughter is a clash of matter and spirit, so it's good behavior metaphysics.

We're at 58 seconds, all players have packed up.

Can Shaving Cause An Outbreak

Are there things that machines will never do?

The question we pose today Doctor Philo was asked multiple times, and they proposed a variety of tests to know where to stop the machines in their imitation of man.

known today especially the Turing test of making a user interact with a computer with the aim of establishing for certain if the other side, there is another user, or if it is the machine that meets all alone.

In fact, Dr. Philo tried-adventure with a program ad-hoc (1): he was very disappointed. The doubt did not take more than 3 seconds. When he asked the caller what he thought of Barack Obama, the machine responded with a stereotype, like "You can reword your question? "

Already Descartes had raised the question of proof between the animal (considered by him as a machine) and the man there was a total difference. And this evidence is the use of language.

For example: a parrot says hello to his mistress, not that he is happy to see her, but because he hopes to have the food she was accustomed to give reward for having spoken. In other words, the talking machine does not with about and may not reflect reality. (See text Descartes here )

Another example: God has created Adam and he wondered if he invented a machine or if the man knows how to do that thing that the machine can not not do . He had the answer when chewed Adam's apple. A machine can not fish, that is to say, do what it has not been invented.

But I still prefer the test of Lady Lovelace, which is seldom mentioned.

Already Lady Lovelace was the daughter of Byron, which commands respect and arouses amazement in defining a test to pass to computers. But above all, the test is the creation of Lovelace: the machine, which is unable to create, that is to say, invent something that can not be deduced analytically data that are already known (2 ).

In fact, a machine that can create, it's scary. Example:

Many years ago IBM had produced a powerful computer chess player, Big Blue , against which Kasparov, world champion, lost. It said while some of moves made by the machine was pure creations, we would never have been able to infer from the database of prior parties stored in the memory of the machine.

was a machine that had passed the test brilliantly Lovelace: IBM has dismantled and nothing more was ever heard of.

(1) On a site on spam discussion: this is Alice .

(2) Is analytically deduced what was already contained in the given subject to analysis. A bit like the submarine surfaced beneath the sea existed before becoming visible.

Similarly, in the example of the parrot, "Hello" to the mistress is derived analytically the condition of the parrot: he's hungry.