From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.u Mon Mar  9 18:35:50 EST 1992
Article 4317 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.u
manitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.173743.18429@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 6 Mar 92 17:37:43 GMT
References: <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 87

In article <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>Again, *how* does determinism deny meaning, and understanding!
>>As far as I am concerned the only thing determinism denies
>>is freedom! And humans are determined in exactly the same
>>way as any physical device, hence computers and humans
>>have the same amount of freedom/determinism!
>  Ok, since you are absolutely refusing, I believe more for personal
>reasons than logical ones, to accept that determinism denies meaning,
>tell me how it DOESN'T deny meaning.
>
You have commited a fallacy, Petitio Principii - begging the question.
It is up to you to prove that it does deny those things!
Or, tell me How determinism denies grapefruit!

>
>>>
>>adverbs and adjectives are related to the use of words to
>>describe words (language) and would have no meaning were there
>>no language! SO they are related to the action of the use of
>>language. (anyway's Wittgenstein goes halfway with this, then
>>he drops the ball.) Impending death, All physical elements in
>>the universe have an impending death, though some are further
>>away than others.
>  But not impending death in the Heideggerian sense.  Show me the
>Heideggerian impending death of the computer and I will probably conceed
>this whole thing.  You are showing me, more and more, how valuable 
>Heidegger really is.  

Heidegger is not a rationalist, therefore I cannot argue 
anything rationally about his works, if you want to associate
with his camp you are welcome to it, but if you do that
then you better relinquish all NET priviliges, and you had
better go back to the farm, because there is no progress!
>>>AZ:
>>>
>>
>>You neglect to take into account other inputs that the computer
>>has, such as memory, input ports, etc.. So it does not just
>>take input and act on it, it weighs the consequences and
>>acts on the most favorable, but this does not mean that it
>>will make the perfect descision every time, as complete 
>>information is possible for only a very restricted circumstance
>>such as talking about mathematics! When talking about the real
>>world, it is not likely to make the same decision twice,
>>because it has memory about previous decisions. (no matter
>>if you feed it the exact same external inputs!)
>  Hogwash.  This doesn't make a bit of difference.  The point still remains
>in tact, the computer is still volitionally determined, which I have
>already established and you fail to refute on any interesting ground.  If
>it weren't for the fact that this stuff is thought to be determined in 
>some sense; the notion of software engineering would go out the window.
>
And I have established that the computer is determinied in 
exactly the same way that a human is determined, they are
both physical systems operating in the same physical world!
And unless it was not accepted that humans are thought to be
determined psycology would disappear, and so would correctional
institutions (and laws, and ...)
So show me in one way that a human is not determined, but
that machines are! (if you have to do this by example I will
accept it!)

>
>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
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


