Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!kovsky
From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Subject: Was:  (Re: Large-scale quantum & Penrose) Physical Law & Freedom
Message-ID: <kovskyCxz8zB.Dw2@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <Cx967I.LzF@sun2.iusb.indiana.edu> <CxMF4D.Bro@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <kovskyCxo4yx.EE5@netcom.com> <Cxu1Dv.22n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:13:58 GMT
Lines: 88

Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>In article <kovskyCxo4yx.EE5@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <CxMF4D.Bro@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
>
>
>>	A more interesting question from my perspective is why we believe
>>that the "laws of physics" are universal.  These "laws" are formulated and
>>implemented under highly constrained conditions, e.g., those of the
>>physics laboratory or technological manufacturing plant.  Those highly
>>constrained conditions are obviously different from the hurly-burly of
>>processes that are going on in the brain.  The hypothesis that the "laws
>>of physics" are universal is an interesting one, but only a hypothesis. 
>>And there are good reasons to conclude that those laws are no more than
>><approximations> that are highly accurate only under those highly
>>constrained conditions. 
>>
>You might have perhaps noticed that there is a lot of things which operate
>in natural environment but are built on the basis of laws derived 'under
>highly constrained conditions'. The "laws of physics" may not be "universal"
>in some sense, but not for the reasons you outline.

	The closer conditions approach to laboratory conditions, the more 
accurate the "laws of physics".  Bridges, buildings and automobiles are 
within a per cent or so, but, I suggest, because they are engineered to 
approximate the highly constrained conditions under which physical laws 
were derived.  Medical procedures, where an attempt is made to apply 
laboratory conditions to the unlaboratory-like conditions of an animal's 
body, are much less accurate.  Laws of physics are not very useful in 
describing the market-place or the swamp.

>
>>	Instruments and representational techniques introduce systemic
>>distortions into the images created.  Optical instruments create
>>distortions in their images and introduce aberration, as well as being
>>characterized by such matters as depth of field.  Preparing a plane map of
>>an area on the globe results in errors that are expressed in a formula
>>that has a formal similarity to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
>>(errors in angles x errors in area).  The fact that particular optical
>>instruments can produce distortion-free images under a narrow range of
>>conditions (e.g. placement, size of image) and the fact that the errors
>>created by map-making can be reduced indefinitely by reducing the relative
>>size of the area mapped does not avoid the systemic distortions.  Why do
>>we assume that the instruments of experience and the functions of the
>>brain produce "veridical" images reducible to differential equations?  So
>>much evidence from daily life points in the opposite direction. 
>>
>We assume the above because such assumptions allow us to get practical
>results. If you think that following "the opposite direction" will be more
>fruitful in the above respect, please indicate how. If you are right, you
>will gain fame and money.

	The ftp site noted below has the results of over 20 years of 
following "the opposite direction".  I think the results are fruitful.  
Alas, the ideas are novel and not easy.  Fame and money have eluded me.  

	But, let me suggest, on a simple and gross scale, that you compare
the <style> of a world operating according to the laws of physics and
differential equations with the <style> of the world you see on the street
and in the wilderness.  <THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!!!> (forgive my
shouting, but it seems so apparent and so widely ignored) The latter is
filled with "happenstance," and "unforeseen" "opportunities" and
"threats."  We act spontaneously in response to such conditions to carry
out "intentions" and to realize "values" such as "freedom."  (It
astonishes me that scientists and engineers who enjoy freedom more perhaps
than any other class of professionals have a professional denial of its
existence.)

	I have been re-reading Dreyfus' <What Computers Still 
Can't Do> and, I must say, he was right on the money the first time and 
still is.  I take an engineer's approach to the problem and my 
methods are different, but his observations of how real life escapes 
the traditional scientific approach are clearly correct both for 
philsophers and engineers.

	I believe that it is possible to build an engineering device that
will act consciously (as a human acts consciously), but that the device
will not be a machine.  A cook's stove and a potter's kiln are devices
that are not machines.  The cook and the potter are using their minds to
operate the devices, but "physical law" does not provide the operative
principles and laws of physics provide no guidance on achieving the
various results.  I suggest that the stove and the kiln are closer to the
brain than a laboratory experiment and that new principles will be 
necessary in order to guide us in building conscious devices.
-- 

*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
    Bob Kovsky          |  A Natural Science of Freedom 
    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/freeedom
*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
