From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:35:40 EST 1992
Article 4302 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!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: <1992Mar2.033104.4206@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar4.024155.12681@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 05:25:03 GMT

In article <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>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!
  Ok, since you are absolutely refusing, I believe more for personal
reasons than logical ones, to accept that determinism denies meaning,
tell me how it DOESN'T deny meaning.


>>
>>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.
  But not impending death in the Heideggerian sense.  Show me the
Heideggerian impending death of the computer and I will probably conceed
this whole thing.  You are showing me, more and more, how valuable 
Heidegger really is.  
>>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!)
  Hogwash.  This doesn't make a bit of difference.  The point still remains
in tact, the computer is still volitionally determined, which I have
already established and you fail to refute on any interesting ground.  If
it weren't for the fact that this stuff is thought to be determined in 
some sense; the notion of software engineering would go out the window.


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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



