From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue Mar 24 09:54:33 EST 1992
Article 4367 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.012348.11996@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 10 Mar 92 01:23:48 GMT
References: <1992Mar6.052503.13703@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.173743.18429@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar8.055641.29309@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 74

>>>>Again, *how* does determinism deny meaning, and understanding!
>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

I understand a little more now. Yes the actions are produced
in 'any event', but to me they are produced because of what
I (the determined system) is doing! The actions could not be
produced if I was not there! You see there are two ways of 
looking at it, but it really is the same thing (sort of like
light particles and waves!)

I think you are confusing yourself with the meaning of the
word meaning, in one case you want to take the meaning of
what it means to you personally and apply it to the whole
system (objective) - the objective meaning of meaning is
not the same as the subjective meaning of 'meaning'.

Thus, whatever you do/think/feel/*.* is predetermined, but
to you (the process) you cannot compute the predetermined
states since that is what your life IS, your life is the
computing of the predetermined states. That is why you
have the feeling that you are free, since if you did not
feel free you would need to have knowledge of the future
states, which does not make sense since you are computing
the future states! (sorry about this last part, if you
do not want to think about it just chalk it down as
miscellenious ramblings! But please understand the
first 2 parts.)

>>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."  

Quite correct, thank you.
>>>
>>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.
>
Nowhere did I say that humans are computable, I just said that
all humans are predetermined! Then again, there exist computer
programs that are non-computable (but are predetermined as much
as humans!)
You are making the mistake of interpreting determined to mean
that someone in the universe could know and predict everything
about it! This is false, there is nothing in the universe that
can predict anything with any accuracy, to do this it would
have to exit the universe and simulate the whole universe!
I can show you a program that is completely unpredictable, yet
is completely determined!

>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


