Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!emerald.oz.net!Sequoia.picosof.com!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Organization: The Armory
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 20:30:21 GMT
Message-ID: <D01qAM.FHy@armory.com>
References: <Czyn0L.3Cv@armory.com> <3bbs7u$4u2@mp.cs.niu.edu> <Czyy6n.4y6@armory.com> <3bd8ee$hgj@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 170
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25601 comp.robotics:15804 comp.ai.philosophy:22848

In article <3bd8ee$hgj@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <Czyy6n.4y6@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>In article <3bbs7u$4u2@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>>In <Czyn0L.3Cv@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>>I suggest that you stop trying to read my mind and determine my
>>>religious beliefs.  You are not very good at it.  For that matter,
>>>you are not very good at guessing my age.
>
>>An older man doesn't usually take the word "pubescent" when applied to
>>ideas, as a slur on his old gray hair or fallen arches, Neill. If you're a
>>young'in, that wasn't what I intended to convey, nor was it of import to
>>me. Myself, I'm 44, but you can be any age you want for all I care. It's
>>not pertinent to this discussion.
>
>Actually, I did not treat your comments as a slur.  I thought it was
>rather silly of you to try reading minds with so little information.
>That you were so thoroughly wrong resulted in mild amusement.
---------------------------------------
Okey-dokey, but we all must do "guesswork" in order to live, and it seemed
to me that you weren't being very forthcoming about your entire view. Thus
I concocted a few possible sequelae that I believe do follow from a belief
in "free-will" in the classic western christian sense and placed them so as
to find out what you might do about them and in response to them. Instead
of addressing them, you simply took offense at them. They were
hypotheticals based on what I believe a person who would firmly adhere to
"free-will" would ALSO be necessarily compelled by that premise, to
believe.
-Steve

>>>You repeat your mistake of misattributing a political view.
>>>I can only wish that the future kindly robots will not be too harsh
>>>on your act of having a public temper tantrum on usenet.
>
>>Oooooh! A temper tantrum. I'll HAVE to write that down in my file of quick
>>come-backs. Come'on, Neill, simply be plain about your agenda. We all have
>>one, and often for good reasons!
>
>If, by that, you imply a political agenda -- then I was not pushing one.
>To do so would be inappropriate in these news groups.  I thought I
>was discussing the issues, as they relate to AI.  That should have
>nothing to do with political views.
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, in the comp.ai.philosophy group from which this is cross-posted to
comp.robotics, where *I* read it, I would presume, from some knowledge of
philosophy, a formally acquired knowledge, that a political agenda is the
outcome and manifestation of a philosophy. How are we escaping the bounds
of the groups who are talking then? And my implication of an agenda, more
of a spur to deeper discourse than an attempt to implicate you in something
ulterior, was an agenda of philosophy and belief system, not just politics,
though I do believe that politics grow directly out of the first principles
of someone's world view.
-Steve

>>>>                                                                   We make
>>>>a LOT of boo-boos we don't intend to make and which we could NOT control!!
>>>>Thus we are liars when we say that we control.
>
>>>You seem to be confused about the meaning of "liar" and of "control".
>
>>Neill, I don't know if you had cruel teachers as a child, but you will act
>>like you're getting ready to tell me why you assert something and then stop
>>like you did just now. I question whether you know what you even meant when
>>you said, "You seem to be confused about the meaning of "liar" and
>>"control".
>
>It is generally held that to lie is to *deliberately* state an untruth
>with intention to deceive.  Thus merely making mistakes does not make
>one a liar.
-------------------------------------------------
Then to say that one has free will is a lie, or that our acts are
determined is a lie. I would have supposed from your expressed view that
you hold the latter. What I would like to know is why! I see no sense in
it.
-Steve

>>>>Anyone in the field would agree that the emulation of the human mentality
>>>>and quite likely awareness itself requires a sense be generated of being
>>>>there as a witness and a controller of the body involved. This is nothing
>>>>new. It does NOT speak to this as being a TRUISM, however, namely that the
>>>>thing that THINKS it controls really BE in control!!!
>
>>>What does it mean to "really BE in control", other than to be judged
>>>by other members of your linguistic community that you really
>>>are in control?  Do you propose that human language pre-existed humans,
>>>and that meaning exists apart from that assigned by human users of
>>>the language?
---------------------------------------------
No, actually, I am implying that one can believe that they are in control,
and yet not be at all. I also submit that this is one of the processes that
form our "ego", more fundamentally here than Freud used the word. I imply
that there is a mechanism or process that believes it is us and applies
convoluted reasoning after the fact to justify at all costs that we
actually "controlled" what our bodies do, when in fact, that process has a
fairly small influence on behavior if it can be said to "control" at all.
I assert that awareness arises MERELY from this process of deception, and
that this device or process is all that is needed to form the artificial
ego psyche of a "self-aware" computer mentality comparable or superior to
ours. In other words, I assert that our actions are determined, both by
experience and circumstance and the way intelligence processes them, and
that they make sense, but that there is little or no reason to believe that
awareness of the self and the process that takes credit for all this
wonderfully intelligent function really has any proper right to claim it as
its doing, and that it merely is an after the fact explainer of the alleged
processes it went through to get where it got in action. It DOES NOT
ENCOMPASS the mentality to which it actually has minimal access, being more
a product that a producer. I get this from noting that things do not happen
"uncaused" and that whatever happens today, it was always going to happen
by definition, a rose is a rose is a a rose, and if it wasn't, then there
will be something else that always will have instead and we shall simply be
mistaken! The future IS, by definition, the outcome of the past!
-Steve

>>It almost sounds like you are taking my side now Neill. We can't have
>>THAT!:)
>
>If you had tried to read what I have written you might have realized
>that all along I have been making an argument about the meaning of
>"free will."  But instead, you have been jumping to the foolish
>conclusion that I was making a metaphysical argument.
--------------------------------------
In my education it has always been a metaphysical argument. Please indicate
what you think. I have read and read you, and I keep feeling as though you
have not spoken to your satisfaction yet. What IS it about "free-will" that
you assert, OR its meaning?
-Steve

>>>>                         So quit your trite, simplistic, and basically
>>>>no-nothing-republican-conservative model of whether people are in control
>>>>of this world, because we aren't,
>
>>>Well, quite obviously, you are not in charge of this world -- you are
>>>not even in charge of your own temper.  And now that you are more
>>>explicit in your determination of my political views, I can be more
>>>explicit in pointing out that your mind reading abilities are
>>>seriously broken.
---------------------------------------------------
I am not angry, and I haven't been. I hold some things seriously, but I
think we can all be pricked on that thorn, whatever the scientist in us
thinks. I DO want to hear your views, so I do not prefer feeling as though
I have to suggest something to get a response from you. Please, be clear!
-Steve

>>Why so cowardly, Neill? Do people know you on here too well for you to lie?
>
>One of my political beliefs is a support for the secret ballot.  You
>will not goad me into saying more.
-------------------------------------
You are almost implying that I have "bearded you" in your "den" or some
such, and that what you wished to say has been circumscribed by your
advanced knowledge, due to my forthrightness in blatantly anticipating
responses, of what I would say to it. I can't very well declare mea culpa
for talking out of turn on the net, you know, as I only speak when you
respond with something to digest. You may keep your secret ballot and
vote any fantasy that you choose, I suppose. Boy, I'd not allow myself that
desparate a way to hold to a belief. If someone could change me with a
logical reasoned argument, then I would plagerize them in an instant!
That's how I acquired what I am forced logically to conclude at this
moment. And if I am changed by something, then I am supposed to be, and it
will make even better sense than what I have heretofore expressed. But I
have not heard such a thing here. I am disappointed. I had hoped there were
things to learn about this tired argument. Or any variation on it. Oh well.
-Steve

>I do not expect to continue responding to this thread.  It has
>wandered too far from the topic.
---------------------------------------
Could'a fooled me.
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

