From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!ogicse!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:36:07 EST 1992
Article 4347 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!ogicse!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar8.055641.29309@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 92 05:56:41 GMT
References: <1992Mar6.012947.5803@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.173743.18429@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 152

In article <1992Mar6.173743.18429@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>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:
>>>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.
>>
>You have commited a fallacy, Petitio Principii - begging the question.
>It is up to you to prove that it does deny those things!
>Or, tell me How determinism denies grapefruit!
  Well, bascially Anton I don't know how to explain it to you if you can't
understand the argumentation set forth.  I don't think this question was
fallacious, rather, tell me what is wrong with what I have already said.
Meaning relies on intentionality.  Words gain the meaning they do because
two agents "want" to understand the meanings at hand; and, not the "want"
of the computer who must fulfill some criterian in a program statment. The
sort of "want" I intend has to do with uniting of a group of people who "want"  
to be together.  Language was invented for that purpose.  If you claim that a
person is predetermined, then nothing they do matters becuase it would happen
the way that it does in any case.  Thus, the "signs" would have been produced
in any event.  The actions would have taken place in any event.  The only
thing that you could allow is a "feeling," which to would have been
predetermined, of meaning and connection.  Without some form of intent 
there exists no such thing as meaning.  Further, I would argue that language
itself is a technology--a collective extension of human attributes.
  Of course, you could argue that the 'meaning' of a sign comes from its manner
of connecting two parts to form a constitive whole.  The whole is predetermined,
but could not have been accomplished without the 'sign.'  Thus the sign's
meaning has only to do with is connection in relation to purpose.  Ex:
the meaning of "END" in a computer program simply creates a chain of reactions
that remove a program from memory, free up resources, etc, etc.  The meaning
of "END" is nothing more than this function.  However, this has two problems,
1.) It is only an 'end-product' analysis of meaning where the meaning of 
the sign is only gained at the end of the reaction; 2.) This meaning must
be subject to some sort of interpretation or else we wouldn't be talking about
"END" in the first place.  The meaning of "END" is, as it were, under
clarification forever.  It is under-clarification in the sense that programmers
must 'know' what the END function 'does' and must 'plan' accordingly; further
those who work at lower levels must designate the meaning of the word "END"
in such a way that programmers using the lower level products can achieve
their results.  All of this points to one thing, there already exists some
entity which 'purposefully' selects "END" to achieve some goal for some
purpose.  The computer itself doesn't have any meaning for "END" it only 
uses it as a sign to connect other processes together.  The meaning of "END"
comes from the programmer using the statement in the first place.  Further,
the meaning of "END" is NOT subject to interpretation by the computer in 
the fullest sense of the word, it only can "ACT" on that sign, not interpret
it.  HOwever, as explained above, the sign is always under interpretation 
by the programmer.  The "END" switches continually from the present-at-hand
to the ready-at-hand of the programmer.  For the computer, it does neither--as
it simply "Does" something.  But, then again, the computer is not Dasein.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>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.  
>
>Heidegger is not a rationalist, therefore I cannot argue 
>anything rationally about his works, if you want to associate
>with his camp you are welcome to it, but if you do that
>then you better relinquish all NET priviliges, and you had
>better go back to the farm, because there is no progress!
  This shows complete misunderstanding of Heidegger.  After all, what 
is "progress."  I seriously doubt that by rationalist you mean the 
rationalistic movement of philosophy, which Heidegger worked to debunk;
but, rather anything which is "rational."  
This also brings up an important point, your technology
works so far as it remains rational.  Along these lines, a piece of art 
works insofar as it remains a piece of art.  Along these lines, no one
doubts that the artists tries to recreate the human being in his work--further,
no one would mistake the person in art as a real person.  So why do you
do so in computing?  To reply "Computing isn't art" is simply to beg the
question.

>>>>AZ:
>>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>And I have established that the computer is determinied in 
>exactly the same way that a human is determined, they are
>both physical systems operating in the same physical world!
>And unless it was not accepted that humans are thought to be
>determined psycology would disappear, and so would correctional
>institutions (and laws, and ...)
>So show me in one way that a human is not determined, but
>that machines are! (if you have to do this by example I will
>accept it!)
  How often does psychology fail?  How often do correctional institutions
fail?  In this way, we see why a human isn't so determined as you would
hope.  Just remember the old joke, from psychology, "HOw many psychologists
does it take to change a light bulb?"  "One, but the light bulb has to 
want to change." Part of the difference here is that, whereas when a programmer
fails to change a programmer he is thought incompetent, a psychologist 
who fails to change a client, or a slew of psychs for that matter, isn't
considered a failure.  IT is a widely accepted fact that humans play a 
critical and dynamic role in the process.  Computers do not play such a 
critical and dynamic role in the process. First, because it is the program
we are changing, not the computer, and, second, the statement "ERROR" isn't
so dynamic after all.

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

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


