From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:55:16 EST 1992
Article 4419 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.005100.22980@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 92 00:51:00 GMT
References: <1992Mar2.110650.13158@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar4.025014.13512@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar10.160141.11132@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 106

In article <1992Mar10.160141.11132@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar4.025014.13512@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar2.110650.13158@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>OC:
>>>>>>   The system must have volition--in turn which means that it is
>>>>>>   dynamic and creative.
>
>PS:
>>>>>What do you mean by creative? Are electrons dynamic and creative?
>
>OC:
>>>>  The system is creative..  Electrons may not be; but the system composed of
>>>>them may be.
>
>PS:
>>>But what does it mean creative?
>
>OC:
>>   Read literature--there is creativity.  Listen to music--there is
>>creativity.  Surely this question is a joke.  Copping out like this does
>>not vindicate the machine.  Perhaps feedback, both internal and external,
>>aid in creativity.
>
>You still have no definition for creativity. Defining waves by saying:
>"swim, there are waves", says nothing about the physical principles
>concerning waves (can you define EM waves this way too?)

   Creativity - The attrbute which gives some system the ability to 
generate new situations, outputs, and problems in an environment or 
internally.  These new "outputs" can be, though not necessarily, free
of context from given inputs from another agent.  These "outputs" are
produced by influence from the enviornment in a volitional way.

>of some components. Till what level do you want to influence a system?
>Isn't this 'influencing' a kind of control, that requeries knowledge of 
>the internal functioning of the system?
>
  Yes, influence is a "kind of" control; but, it is not total control
unless, of course, you are a computer.

>
>PS:
>>>But you seem to say that volition is predetermined.
>>>Your arguments are still not valid.
>
>OC:
>>  Volition is not predetermined--it is influenced.  A computer, on the
>>other hand, has not volition even though certain outputs may not be
>>predictable(even though, with rigourous enough analysis they can always
>>be).
>
>You mean that we cannot influence the way a computer works or what?
>Your results are still not valid.
  Of course not, and of course they are.

>
>Philip Santas
>
EX:
  If it is known that a computer will produce output X by stimulus Y
then to get output X you must provide stimulus Y.  In this way, the computer
is predictable.  Of course, the computer must have been programmed to receive
input Y and produce output X.  Of course, the computer could have other 
inputs which would produce other outputs.  But, it is known that a computer
will always produce output X with stimulus Y.  Of course, X and Y can 
be a series or a system of inputs or outputs.
  This sort of predictability is not possible on a human.  At best, you
could only say "George gives output X when provided by stimulus Y most
of the time--or in EVERY SINGLE PAST CASE.  However, George could be
given stimulus Y and not produce output X because some volitional element,
which is AFFECTED by stimulus Y, determines a new output, perhaps, Z.
  If X was a question for a math proof, and Y was an output from a math proof,
the computer will always produce the same proof if given the same criteria
for which to solve it.  A human may not, although he may.  If he does not,
we can say that he has creatively produced a new proof.  Further, a computer
would only produce an output.  Whereas George may decide to draw pictures on
the answer sheet, write slanderous remarks to the inventor of the quiz, 
he may produce the wrong output in a way that is not traceable(although a 
computer might produce the wrong output, it is always traceable), or, for
a final example, George may produce something using the proof that provides
proof for something else with that intention in mind.  A computer, unless
programmed to do so, can not.
   If X was a question in english, answer Y will always be syntactically
and lexically the same, unless some randomization function is present which
permits substitution.  This is because the computer doesn't know the meaning of
words it only knows how to match patters and words to others.  A human, on
the other hand, is likely to generate 50 different sentences saying the same
thing and do so with the intention of such because the human understands the
meaning of those sentences in a volitional way.  Thus, if a human does this,
we say he has creativity.

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


