From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:35:36 EST 1992
Article 4301 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!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: <1992Mar2.031253.3229@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar4.022416.11169@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.011131.4146@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.051607.13266@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 05:16:07 GMT

Antun,
  You are increadibly incorrigable.


In article <1992Mar6.011131.4146@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <1992Mar4.022416.11169@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar2.031253.3229@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>>You place an unusual burden on the computer, when you refuse to
>>>give it what every human has had! Every human has had the benefit
>>>of listening to other speakers listen to the correct use of the
>>>language in relation to external inputs! For example, I say
>>  No, its not an unusual burden; because a I am assuming that the computer
>>has information about the language, as you would maintatin, and that both
>>humans and computers can be left alone without interlocutors or other
>>agents present.  The critical difference is that a human can think about
>>these things, indeed event invent problems to solve on their own, without
>>other agents preset.  I doubt this to be possible on a computer.
>
>Quite presumptious of you to assume that a computer has no way 
>of running by itself, with no inputs from people!
  No, I certainly believe that a computer can run by itself; it just
can't invent things without a human.  See the other article I posted
on the difference between determined volition and affected volition---
you are sharpening my distinctions and reasoning skills yet.  Perhaps before
we are through I can acutally write an article with a full fledged theory 
that will blow you away! :-) 

k
	>>>
>>>that you can say that is not from sense data - say it.)
>>  "My mind is feeling rather gloomy today."  Where is the sense data for
>>that statement?  Sense data are things like, "Blue patch here now."  How
>>do you find 'feeling' in the material world, what is 'gloom' and what is
>>a 'mind'? But, of course, you still understand the sentence.
>>
>Again, quite presumptious to assume that I understand the question!
>I think that you are saying (a) your feeling sad (b) you are not
>able to think clearly (c) you are tired. In either case you are
>stating a fact about your body.
>	Let us say that our Turing tested computer recognizes
>that its hardware is not functioning properly, random errors,
>it says "Sorry, but I cannot answer questions, my mind is
>feeling rather gloomy today"! What is this statement about?
  The point, which you are convienently dropping to my avail, is that
"gloomy" and "feeling" are not sense-data esp in the Russellian sense.

>
>>>>
>>>The understanding of that proposition comes from the fact that
>>>it is a tautology. There is nothing to understand, that is the
>>>way it is defined!
>>  Then you have baffled me as to how you maintain that a computer, which
>>resets on these tautologies, can have meaning at all. (much less understanding.)
>>
>How does a computer rest on tautologies? That I do not understand.
  Once a computer is broken down we find it can only come to its conclusions
using these tautologies.  Of course, a computer would never grasp something
like a tautology because it can't look beyond its emptiness of meaning...

>>
>>>>   A computer does not have volition.  A computer does not have volition
>>>>   because, even as a system, its behavior is presecribed and thus
>>>>   predetermined.  
>>>>
>>>I beg to differ! It's behavior is prescribed in the same way that
>>>a humans behavior is prescribed. The human has inputs thru senses,
>>  I am not sure how you think that human behavior is prescribed in the
>>same way as a computer except by way of the very metaphore we are 
>>discussing.  This statement, of course, does not mean that human behavior is
>>not prescribed at all, but that there are some very essential differences.
>>One of those differences is the ability for a human to invent situations
>>and reactions to those situations quite arbitrarily; something which a 
>>computer can not, and will never be able, to do.
>>
>Sorry, in my experience there is nothing to prevent computers from
>inventing situations as arbitrarily as humans. I am not saying
>that this has been done, but just that it is possible!
  If it hasn't been done, how is it a part of your experience?

>So again, I come to the conclusion, whatever humans can do
>computers can do just as well!
  Yeah, what computer do you have that can translate Gogol to English?
Wasn't it that famous russian translation program, which can do whatever
humans can do, that insisted on translating "Hydraulic Ram" as "water goat."
If this is as good as you think humans can do, you don't hang out with
very many humans.  HOw can you live with yourself--you seriously believe
that the computer is just as good as you?  Notice: you did not use
"possibly", you used the present tense..  Beware of those logical falacies,
which to be sure, your computer is far better at than you. ;-)


BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu



"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




