Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Was:  (Re: Large-scale quantum & Penrose) Physical Law & Freedom
Message-ID: <Cy6vEC.147@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <Cx967I.LzF@sun2.iusb.indiana.edu> <kovskyCxo4yx.EE5@netcom.com> <Cxu1Dv.22n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <kovskyCxz8zB.Dw2@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 18:01:24 GMT
Lines: 99

In article <kovskyCxz8zB.Dw2@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:
>Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
....
>>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.
>
Your view of operation of "law of physics" seems to be very limited. Similar
claim could have been made 50 years ago concerning for instance making
metallic alloys. Electronic theory of metals seemed totally inadequate to
describe properties of "real" metalic systems. However, progress of theory
and development of computational techniques allows now description and
understanding of realistic metallic systems. The same applies to weather.
Many "real" systems are very complicated and certainly idealized laboratory
conditions may be inadequate in a sense of not fully reflecting this 
complexity. There is no indication however, that anything else except 
complexity is a problem. Steady progress in our abilities to deal with 
complex systems leads to progress in understanding more and more realistic
situations.
.......................
>>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.  
>
If I find time, I'll look there, but if following "the opposite direction"
produced results of any significance, fame and money would follow.

>	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

They are not. It just the matter of being able to see. Newton's laws
operate also on the street and you better take them into account if you do
not want to die in a car accident (you do not of course need to know the exact
formulation but the relationship between force, mass and acceleration holds
just the same). Laws of electromagnetism operate too, otherwise you would not
be able to post your messages.

>shouting, but it seems so apparent and so widely ignored) The latter is

Maybe it is ignored because this claim is empty of significant consequences.

.......
>	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

I have never heard about a stove or a potter's kiln operated by minds only.
The cook and the potter still have to use their hands.

>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

You are certainly wrong concerning operation of the potter's kiln. Maybe 
you should educate yourself about the progress in understanding physics
and chemistry of ceramics. Magic of centuries-old art of glass-making is also
yielding to physical analysis. And the progress in the chemistry of cooking
might surprise you too. 

>brain than a laboratory experiment and that new principles will be 
>necessary in order to guide us in building conscious devices.
>-- 
Generally you seem to equate a machine with a device which has moving parts.
In this sense a cathode ray tube is not a machine either, or is it? How
about a computer? Its operation is not based on few mechanical parts, like
a keyboard or a disk drive but on electronic processes inside a silicon chip. 
So is it a machine? How about a laser?
>
>*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
>    Bob Kovsky          |  A Natural Science of Freedom 
>    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
>                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/freeedom
>*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
Andrzej

-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
