Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!olivea!news.hal.COM!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!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, 6 Dec 1994 13:50:23 GMT
Message-ID: <D0E6G5.2w7@armory.com>
References: <3br81l$e24@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D0CDwv.AB0@armory.com> <3bvnp1$cum@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 127
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25756 comp.robotics:16022 comp.ai.philosophy:23248

In article <3bvnp1$cum@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <D0CDwv.AB0@armory.com> rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>In article <3br81l$e24@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>What exactly is the "WE" that you refer to?  If the "WE" does not
>>>make choices, what is the purpose of the "WE".  Why don't you just
>>>insist that you are an unconscious zombie.
>
>>To insist that I am unconscious would be to lie. But what I am saying is
>>that the "thing" among all our other functions which declares that it is
>>"us" and feels it to be ourself, is just one function, and there is NO way
>>to show that it does more than preside over meetings at which it simply
>>adopts what the others vote for, and is not, itself, a voting member!
>
>In other words, you are an epiphenomenalist.  You consider consciousness
>to be a mere insignificant side effect.
-----------------------------------------
Yes, but also an unknowing cause in its own right, as are the other parts
of decision, and themselves caused as much by other things. What we think
ourselves to be is so nebulous and inaccurate that the functions of
awareness and the other functions are all interlocked. They are not truly
separable. I am an pseudo-epi-phenomenologist then, in that I do not assert
that consciousness is limited to being a witness. I simply do not believe
that we control. That we affect is obvious! But we mess up all the time
when we try to affect outcomes. And again, the construct of awareness is so
intricately bound up with all other processes it winesses that it cannot be
pared off and defined so easily. But there is not and cannot be proof that
awareness is effective as a prime mover or independent cause. Thus it is
impossible to tell where we end and the not we begins!
-Steve

>If I pour hot water onto ice cream, the ice cream melts.  I want to say
>that the heat from the hot water melted the ice cream.  You want to insist
>that the heat did nothing of the kind.  Instead, in your view, the heat
>does no more than preside at meetings at which it is a non-voting
>member, and the kinetic energy of the molecules does all the work.
--------------------------------------
I hold neither to be what you call "true". I merely note that this is the
"story" that is the event. And I do not assume ice cream or heat to be
aware. They may be, at an equal level to their participation as are we!
And they, in a sense exist "in" us, and we "in" them! Neither of us are
existent without the other. If ice cream feels it is a cause, who am I to
begrudge it? But I know that it is delusion as is mine own!
-Steve

>This way of looking at things is so confused, that I don't know where
>to start.  The description of events in terms of heat as the
>causative agent, is simply a description at a different level.  It is
>a useful description, which succinctly summarizes the overall effect
>of the low level behavior resulting from molecular motion.
>
>In the same way, descriptions in terms of consciousness and free
>will, are useful and succint high level descriptions which summarize
>the overall effect of the molecular activity within the body.
>
>>>The whole point is that there are different levels of description.
>>>There is one level where the proper terminology is to discuss
>>>molecular action.  At that level there is no consciousness and there
>>>is no free will.  At another level there is consciousness which
>>>allows the exercise of free will to make choices.  If you prefer to
>>>talk at one level, that is fine.  Other people may prefer to discuss
>>>things at a different level.  That everything has an explanation at
>>>one level does not refute the possibility that everything has an
>>>explanation at the other level.  These different levels need not be
>>>seen as in conflict.
>
>>Not unless something patently ridiculous is asserted. Like "free-will".
>
>Asserting free will is only patently ridiculous if you insist on
>a patently ridiculuous meaning for "free will".
>
>>We would seem to provisionally agree about "levels", but more needs to be
>>exchanged to know. The real world is not made of atoms. The REAL world is
>>made of stories! That the world is made of atoms is just one of the
>>stories, one of the tales we tell to try to explain how to remember how
>>things work and predict them.
>
>That people are conscious and act with free will is another of these
>stories.  Since many people find it a useful story, why do you object
>so strongly?
------------------------------
I do not object to them knowing that story. I object to them not knowing
other contradictory stories! I see consequence to such an ignorance. A
great and painful consequence!
-Steve

>>>>                                                               And to say
>>>>that it was not begs the already true! If there was no certain tomorrow,
>>>>then, when we got there, anything could be happening willy-nilly, and
>>>>everything could happen at once, for no particular reason. Thus cause, by
>>>>whatever laws is proven. QED.
>>>
>>>The majority of physicists reject determinism as contradictory to the
>>>evidence at the quantum level.  The idea that a lack of determinism
>>>would imply complete chaos is silly.
>
>>Now that is incorrect on its face. Most embrace a deterministic multiple
>>universe of multiple pasts and multiple futures and also recognize the
>>phenomenological analysis.
>
>I don't have statistics.  But my impression is that there are more
>physicists who reject the Everett interpretation than there are who
>accept it.
>
>>                                           Many laymen believe the load
>>you're shoveling, because it protects their precious sense of control,
>
>There are others who believe the load that you are shovelling,
>because it allows them to deny that they have any control.  Armed
>with such a denial they can sue McDonald's for their own stupidity in
>holding hot coffee between their knees in a moving automobile.  But,
>in common with many other deniers of free will, they hold to only a
>half-baked version of their denial.  If they really denied free will,
>they would have to also deny that McDonald's had any control over the
>temperature of the coffee.
-----------------------------
McD's coffee is a rather silly example. If a certain piece of flesh seems
to have a predeliction for killing other pieces of flesh like mine, then I
will wish it jailed or worse. I do not care, in that case, why it may have
done those things. I do wish for there to be a more thorough examination
done than a stupid conclusion that some pieces of flesh are simply "bad".
And I do have a sense that it is not all that hard to wind up on the other
side of the jail bars looking out without being much different than either
of us! There are huge factors we are neither one in control of. The blamer
wishes to play that down. The thinker wishes to know what that is.
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

