From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas Mon Mar  9 18:34:22 EST 1992
Article 4180 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas
>From: santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas)
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar1.213842.6333@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch (Mr News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: spica.inf.ethz.ch
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
References: <1992Feb29.080019.9272@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:38:42 GMT
Lines: 63


In article <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>   Meaningfulness comes from volition.

This is just a definition, which for the sake of the argument I can
temporarily accept.

>   The system must have volition--in turn which means that it is
>   dynamic and creative.

What do you mean by creative? Are electrons dynamic and creative?

>   A computer does not have volition.  A computer does not have volition
>   because, even as a system, its behavior is presecribed and thus
>   predetermined.

Possibilities for hardware and software errors always exist.

>   Predetermination denies volition which in turn denies meaning which
>   in turn denies understanding.

There are some levels of predetermination.
If you put a human to very high temperature you get plasma.
In this way the human is NOT a dynamic or creative system
and the result is not a surprise.

On the other hand, you can get 'creative' machines if you put them
under certain electromagnetic fields or temperature environments.

>  Conclsion:
>   A computer, as a system, lacks volition and thus lacks understanding.

Since your assumptions are (at least) fuzzy, I do not see how your conclusion
can be valid.

>  OF COURSE, it could be said that a computer and a human working together
>  comprises a system of understanding.  However, this is not the question
>  at hand--the question is "Can the computer, by itself, understand?"
>  The answer is "no."

Dito

>  IF:
>   If you want to maintain that human has not volition; you also maintain
>   that a human produces nothing meaningful and in turn deny that
>   he has understanding.

Now I can stop accepting your initial definition, and ask:
why is volition necessary for understanding. What is 'undersatnding'
and in what sence is it related to volition? Why is volition
not a result of understanding?

Philip Santas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: santas@inf.ethz.ch				 Philip Santas
Mail: Dept. Informatik				Department of Computer Science
      ETH-Zentrum			  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      CH-8092 Zurich				       Zurich, Switzerland
      Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-2547391
      


