From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.uman Mon Mar  9 18:35:35 EST 1992
Article 4299 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.uman
itoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 6 Mar 92 01:29:47 GMT
References: <1992Mar1.073946.26151@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar2.033104.4206@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 88

In article <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>CO - Charles Onstott
>AZ - Antun Zirdum
>
>	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.
a
Again, *how* does determinism deny meaning, and understanding!
As far as I am concerned the only thing determinism denies
is freedom! And humans are determined in exactly the same
way as any physical device, hence computers and humans
have the same amount of freedom/determinism!
>
>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.
>
adverbs and adjectives are related to the use of words to
describe words (language) and would have no meaning were there
no language! SO they are related to the action of the use of
language. (anyway's Wittgenstein goes halfway with this, then
he drops the ball.) Impending death, All physical elements in
the universe have an impending death, though some are further
away than others.
>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.

You neglect to take into account other inputs that the computer
has, such as memory, input ports, etc.. So it does not just
take input and act on it, it weighs the consequences and
acts on the most favorable, but this does not mean that it
will make the perfect descision every time, as complete 
information is possible for only a very restricted circumstance
such as talking about mathematics! When talking about the real
world, it is not likely to make the same decision twice,
because it has memory about previous decisions. (no matter
if you feed it the exact same external inputs!)

>   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
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


