From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:34:23 EST 1992
Article 4181 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!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
References: <1992Feb29.080019.9272@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar1.213842.6333@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <1992Mar1.235957.20999@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 23:59:57 GMT
Lines: 71

In article <1992Mar1.213842.6333@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>
>>   Meaningfulness comes from volition.
>
>This is just a definition, which for the sake of the argument I can
>temporarily accept.
>
>>   The system must have volition--in turn which means that it is
>>   dynamic and creative.
>
>What do you mean by creative? Are electrons dynamic and creative?
  The system is creative..  Electrons may not be; but the system composed of
them may be.


>
>>   A computer does not have volition.  A computer does not have volition
>>   because, even as a system, its behavior is presecribed and thus
>>   predetermined.
>
>Possibilities for hardware and software errors always exist.
  But this is random and not under control.  Pure randomnimity is not 
volitional.


>>   Predetermination denies volition which in turn denies meaning which
>>   in turn denies understanding.
>
>There are some levels of predetermination.
>If you put a human to very high temperature you get plasma.
>In this way the human is NOT a dynamic or creative system
>and the result is not a surprise.
  Ok, read "predetermination denies" as "Pure Predeterminitation"
>
>On the other hand, you can get 'creative' machines if you put them
>under certain electromagnetic fields or temperature environments.
  This doesn't make any sense.  Please explain.

>
>>  Conclsion:
>>   A computer, as a system, lacks volition and thus lacks understanding.
>
>Since your assumptions are (at least) fuzzy, I do not see how your conclusion
>can be valid.
See above.


>
>>  OF COURSE, it could be said that a computer and a human working together
>>  comprises a system of understanding.  However, this is not the question
>>  at hand--the question is "Can the computer, by itself, understand?"
>>  The answer is "no."
>
>Dito
>
>>  IF:
>>   If you want to maintain that human has not volition; you also maintain
>>   that a human produces nothing meaningful and in turn deny that
>>   he has understanding.
>
>Now I can stop accepting your initial definition, and ask:
>why is volition necessary for understanding. What is 'undersatnding'
>and in what sence is it related to volition? Why is volition
>not a result of understanding?
  There is another article on here which will explain this.
>Philip Santas

BCnya,
 Charles O. Onstott, III


