From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Apr  7 23:22:11 EDT 1992
Article 4710 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4710 sci.philosophy.tech:2423
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.063222.12590@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 06:32:22 GMT
References: <1992Mar22.185518.12932@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar22.212839.5347@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar24.150412.11325@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 76

In article <1992Mar24.150412.11325@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar22.212839.5347@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>>Since, I am utilizing the systems stance in this proposition, I am not
>>addresing this question.  The chemicals themselves can not, like HCl, identify
>>a patient. On the other hand, the system they form is able to.
>
>The electrons in the atoms of HCl react under certain ways in appearence
>of atoms of metals, water molecules etc, and one can assume that they
>exchange information with such atoms and they identify them, but they do 
>not identify molecules of H2 alone.
  Good point...

>In both cases you can create a model of agents,
>but ofc ourse one can say 'nonsence this is not necessary'.
>I still do not understand the reasons (if any) for this discrimination.
  For the time being, I believe you have shown that there are NO reasons
for this discrimination.

>>  However, you can still reply "What about the cloud as a system of
>>chemicals, why can't it identify a patient?"  I don't know if I can answer
>>this one and make you happy--maybe, because I am not sure yet.  I am sort of
>>taking for granted that there is a differnce in identifying patientcy
>>between a cloud and a virus.  One difference may be that a cloud doesn't seem
>>to "go after" something.  I imagine, however, that this is not answering
>>your question; thus, on this point I can't say any more right now.
>
>So for you a virus is going after something?
>And why do you reduce the problem to chemicals?
  I am purposely avoiding this reduction.  However, I suppose my arguementation
was misleading.  I was meerly trying to imagine a possible question that
you may have.  No, I am strictly trying to adhere to a systems model.

>Are the electrons going after protons? 
  This is a good question.  I think that this sort of question brings
about the ultimate distruction of the systems model.  One might be tempted
to say, "Yes, but you need to think of this in terms of complexity.  Ignore
the underlying constituents."  The problem is, of course, this simply
can not be ignored.  Even utilizing a, to borrow Searles term, "sophisticated
causation" we still must pay strict attention to the constituents.  Ultimately,
either the systems argument grants some sort of liscence of difference
between a system of protons-moving to chemicals-moving to cells-moving to
brains-moving to minds-moving and the constituents themselves, or, they
have completely removed meaning from the question itself.  I think that
the systems argumentation can self-destruct easily particularly whenever
it looks into a notion of meaning.  HOwever, I have not done a proper
study of the systems argumentation to further this advance.  Some day,
as we philosophers say, "some day."  As for now, it
seems that the systems argument works it self into a dilemma, either
accept the liscence of difference, accept meaning, and provide  a
theory impotent of explanatory power, or, deny the difference, rely
on the constituents, provide explanatory power, and deny meaning.

>
>Since you and M Zeleny agree on this model, I guess, you can explain why.
  I think that I have borrowed some of my stuff from Zeleny.  I am not
sure if this is what Zeleny has in mind.  Further, I am not sure that I 
can explain why.  Further,this may lead to lack of any explanatory power
when thinking of these things in these terms.
>
>Philip Santas

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


