From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas Thu Jan 16 17:19:29 EST 1992
Article 2622 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas
>From: santas@inf.ethz.ch (Filippos Santas)
Subject: Re: Ignore Searle and be happier
Message-ID: <1992Jan10.105621.17024@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch (Mr News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: spica.inf.ethz.ch
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
References: <1992Jan8.165208.26637@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jan8.200537.18919@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Jan8.213952.14223@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 10:56:21 GMT

In article <1992Jan8.213952.14223@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Jan8.200537.18919@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Filippos Santas) 
>>
>>The voltage in the output does not depend on previous states => system
>>without memory. If you add an inductance then you have a system where the
>
> But try putting a dry battery cell into the circuit.  Discharging the battery
>has a substantial effect on future voltages.

Here you prove with the best way what I say. Memory is something that has to do
with present and past, right? Here you add to a circuit the metaphysical property
that it can predict its future behaviour. It is the physical laws that allow
you to do such predictions. It is not the device and its current state that do this
for and by themselves. The same laws allow you to retrieve its previous states (whenever 
this is possible).

>>You used the example of a device which is constructed among others for data
>>storage. Not every system needs to keep as memory its previous states. But even so,
>
> I believe I was using "state" in the way you were using it.
>
> State is always memory.  But you can distinguish between cases:
>
>       state in a finite state automaton, where state is only temporary
>       working memory, since the state is always reset to its initial
>       condition.
>
> and
>
>       state in a computer, where you do not reformat the disks every time
>       you boot, but allow memory to accumulate for a long time.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's only call the second one "memory".
>
> Now back to your argument:
>
>       You blind-folded your man, so that he could not make use of his
>       memory.  This is somewhat like resetting to the initial state.
>       Let's for the moment agree that his actions depend only on current
>       stimuli and temporary state.

No, it is not like resetting to any initial state. The man in our example
does not forget the way to his work etc. He has absolutely no knowledge
(and therefore no memory) for where he is.

>       How do you do this for the tree.  Do you remove all the buds, lop off
>       the roots, remove all of the outer layer (cambium - just below the
>       bark) to make its memory unavailable?  Such actions are known to
>       have devastating effects on growth.

The tree reacts on stimuli in the same way a circuit does. I see no
reason why should a tree know (or remember) its age, its size,
etc. The tree receives some input and reacts according to this, due to
the physical laws. After this reaction why should it keep this input in 
any memory?


Philip Santas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: santas@inf.ethz.ch				 Philip Santas
Mail: Dept. Informatik				Department of Computer Science
      ETH-Zentrum			  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      CH-8092 Zurich				       Zurich, Switzerland
      Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-2547391
      


