G. Harman, IL: Open Court 37 See above The original question, 'Can machines think?' I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion This is why Dreyfus's discussion of thinking computers does not come even close to what Turing originally put into the discussion. And also why Galatea 2.2 goes much further than philosophers because it takes its cues directly from Turing and pursues them to their ultimate consequences ? in which again, as we have just read There is a devious etymological relation between 'thing' and 'stretch, p.38, 2002.