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!agate!ucbvax!kla!zardoz Mon Mar  9 18:35:51 EST 1992
Article 4320 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!agate!ucbvax!kla!zardoz
>From: kla!zardoz@sun.com (Phillip Wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.181656.7436@sun!kla>
Date: 6 Mar 92 18:16:56 GMT
References: <1992Feb29.080019.9272@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Sender: news@sun!kla
Organization: KLA Instuments, Inc.
Lines: 104

In article <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>
[ deleted items ... ]

There are a LOT of problems with these "Propositions". I will attempt to
answer each.

>  First Proposition:
>   Truth can be obtained without understanding.  
>    Ex: 2+2=4=2+2 is TRUE however the operators + and = do not themselves
>    understand.

The "operators" are not (in the true sense, at least) operators. Rather, they
are the names of relations between the left and right hand side of the
equations. If you want to say that understanding is being a member of a
specific relation, then the operators do, indeed, understand.

>  Second Proposition:
>   Understanding is a system relationship; but a particular kind of system.
>   For example, as can be derived from the first proposition, the truth
>   and the understanding to go with it requires that of which deems 
>   2+2=4=2+2 to be TRUE and Meaningful.  The understanding of that proposition
>   as True comes from the fact that True is itself meaningful.
>

If you define true as not meaningful, we can stop right here, since
true has no meaning. Truth with a capital T is the reign of religious
converts, politicians, and confidence men. If you want truth to mean
(and I take this as your meaning) that a specific, testable relationship
exits then you can not say that truth has no meaning. In other words,
you want to have it both ways. A != !A if you are dealing with normal
logic. You can't have it both ways.

>  Third Proposition:
>   Meaningfulness comes from volition.

So books (having no volition) have no meaning. Mathematics (having no
volition) has no meaning. Philosphy (having no volition) has no
meaning. Language (having no volition) has no meaning. Words (having
no volition) have no meaning. &c, &c, &c. 

This just gets sillier as it goes along.`

>   The system must have volition--in turn which means that it is
>   dynamic and creative.

By this definition, then, the earth's ecosystem (which it can not
be denied is both dynamic and creative) has volition. 

Sillier and sillier.

>
>  Fourth Proposition:
>   A computer does not have volition.  A computer does not have volition
>   because, even as a system, its behavior is presecribed and thus
>   predetermined.  

The contents of a computer can change many millions of times in a
second. Sounds pretty dynamic to me. Data structures are created and
destroyed many times during the life of a computer. So how come it
doesn't have volition, since it meets the criteria you formerly set
up for volition?

>
>  Fifth Proposition:
>
>   Predetermination denies volition which in turn denies meaning which
>   in turn denies understanding.

If, by this you mean that anything predetermined has neither creativity
nor dynamism, then, by your definition computers do not have predetermination.

>
>  Conclsion:
>   A computer, as a system, lacks volition and thus lacks understanding.

However, this is in complete disagreement with your own definitions of 
volition and understanding. You did not draw you conclusion from your
premises. You drew it from far left field.
 
>  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."

Once again, by your definitions, the computer is capable of understanding. 
So why is the answer no?

>  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.
>

Well, at least some of us produce something meaningfull. Others write
(and answer :-) articles like this.

-- 
+----------------------------------------------+
| When you do it to me, it's discrimination    | These are my opinions.
|    When I do it to you, it's AA              |   Oy vey, are they my opinions
+----------------------------------------------+      Zardoz


