Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!DIALix!sydney.DIALix.oz.au!quasar!telford
From: telford@threetek.dialix.oz.au (Telford Tendys)
Subject: Re: What elevates humans?
In-Reply-To: A OSHINEYE's message of 24 Jan 1996 18:58:34 GMT
Message-ID: <1996Feb2.025104.18277@threetek.dialix.oz.au>
Organization: 3Tek Systems Pty Ltd., N.S.W., Australia (does not endorse this posting)
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 02:51:04 GMT
Lines: 62
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:37355 comp.ai:36691 sci.philosophy.meta:24093

> From: A OSHINEYE <TA5330@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk>
> 
> memegenius@aol.com (MemeGenius) wrote:
> >"Alf P. Steinbach":
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >The thread on "free will" is, I think, not a discussion on free will at
> >all, but simply a brainstorming to find *something* which elevates
> >humans above everything else.  The posters try to do this by defining
> >free will as something uniquely human, and not as anything more tangible 
> > --  that would defeat the whole point of the discussion.

I quite agree, the argument is a definitional one.
No one seems willing to back their choice of definition though.
I guess AI people have accustomed themselves to working without
the requirement for tangible evidence.

> ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >BRILLIANT! You surprise me, Alf! Thanks for posting some non-incolecent
> >and non-mindless thoughts.
> >
> >HERE'S THE ANSWER for all who care:

[ ya ya ya ]

> And if memetic evolution is what elevates humanity then why is it
> stupid for us to help memes. 
> I think this guy is anthropomorphicising memes when he says that there 
> evolution is purposive ie aimed towards universal domination.How could 
> units of cultural transmission exist without cultural beings?

Perhaps it is really the memes that are anthropomorphicising us?

Better still, we should just toss out the idea of a distinct,
dotted line that divides ``US'' from all of ``those other things''
and accept that concepts such as purpose can apply equally well
to non-humans.

The purpose of a rock is just to sit there. Which it will do unless
you put effort into forcing it (against it's will) to move.
The purpose of a toaster is to burn toast. You may be able to
jump in the nick of time and save that toast on most mornings
but sooner or later that toaster will get its way and burn the toast.
The purpose of a feedback controller is to maintain the plant
at the given setpoint.

This is the whole idea that the behaviourists, the Turing Test,
cybernetics and even physics is trying to get through to us:
don't start drawing distinctions from imagined internal states
or prejudice-based classification, at the end of the day ONLY
the externally measured behaviour is counted as evidence.

If I put a human in place of my feedback controller and build a
few levers for him/her to tweak, saying, ``make sure that plant
output stays at the setpoint or it's your job'',
(Don't even think of telling me that there are no humans working
jobs like this) is the human's purpose to keep the plant running
steady? Or course it is! So why does a feedback controller have any
less purpose or intent than a human? Perhaps the human can do a
better job or perhaps the controller can but both of them INTEND to
keep the plant at that setpoint.

	- Tel
