From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:34:57 EST 1992
Article 4236 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
References: <1992Feb29.083155.10877@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar1.073946.26151@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar2.033104.4206@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 02:41:55 GMT
Lines: 94

CO - Charles Onstott
AZ - Antun Zirdum

CO:

   I will use "volition" instead.  Hopefully this does not carry the
   connotation which bothers you.
   Yes, this is a form of WEAK freedom.  I am clueless, however, as to
   why you find this not related to the currect discussion?

AZ:

	How about the fact that since Weak freedom is a definition
of humans, it does not mean that computers are not inherintly
incapable of it!

CO:
   The difference lies in the idea that humans have a weak
freedom as opposed to a  determined weak freedom like a computer.  This
is critical; because a determined weak freedom denies meaning and 
understanding.

AZ:

What causes you to say that meaning is somehow interwined with
freedom/determinism? (I have heard this before from others, but am
really puzzled by this statement.)

CO:

then, meaning looses its meaning(heh) because meaning requires that the
statement be meaningful(shit).  Ok, lets start over, the idea of meaning
requires that whatever is passed meaningfully has an impact that can
determine certain outcomes within a range of possible outcomes.  By "impact
that can determine" I emphasise "CAN" because it may not determine anything--
after all I can say "Don't reply to this" and you could.  The meaning of 
"don't" comes from the word itself plus the actions intended to be

AZ:

The meaning of a word does not come from the word, but from the use
of the word, in relation to our actions. (so only the actions!)

CO:
   Yes, to  a certain degree, but it also comes from 'concept' something
which can be denied from a computer.  Further more, I am not sure you
can build a case that all words are a relation to our actions.  After
all, there are things like adverbs and adjectives.  Concept also has
something to do with 'historizing' in the Hediggerian sense.  Historizing
relies on an impending death; yet another thing that can be denied of a 
computer.

AZ:

I do not only do what I want to do, but it can *also* be interpreted
as I will only do what I have been programmed to do! (programmed
thru memory, teachings, sensory inputs - that's it!)
If those sounds you call language did not influence my decisions
that would be true freedom (:-) However, the sounds do have an
effect on me that (while not determinable in this universe - ie.
you would need another universe to determine what effect those
sounds will have on me!) in principle, those sounds have a
deterministic effect on me, and hence my actions are 
predetermined!

CO:

  Sometimes I wish I could just sit down with you for a cup of coffee
and talk about this for about 10 hours straight.  Using the internet
for these sorts of discussions is a very frustrating thing.  However,
I think you are equivocating predetermined and tyring to use it to
its full effect as opposed to its, as we agreed upon, weak effect.
The language itself does not predetermine you do to anything--it 
influences you.  In a computer, on the other hand, the language doesn't
influence, it determines because a program must do what it is told--if
input A then output B, etc.
   If you think of these things in a Heideggerian sense, Open and Closure
will help you get access to the sort of thing that I am talking about.
Openness and Closure is impossible for a computer.


BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


