From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas Tue Mar 24 09:54:40 EST 1992
Article 4378 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas
>From: santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.160141.11132@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: 10 Mar 92 16:01:41 GMT
References: <1992Mar1.235957.20999@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar2.110650.13158@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar4.025014.13512@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch (Mr News)
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Lines: 80
Nntp-Posting-Host: spica.inf.ethz.ch


In article <1992Mar4.025014.13512@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Mar2.110650.13158@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:

OC:
>>>>>   The system must have volition--in turn which means that it is
>>>>>   dynamic and creative.

PS:
>>>>What do you mean by creative? Are electrons dynamic and creative?

OC:
>>>  The system is creative..  Electrons may not be; but the system composed of
>>>them may be.

PS:
>>But what does it mean creative?

OC:
>   Read literature--there is creativity.  Listen to music--there is
>creativity.  Surely this question is a joke.  Copping out like this does
>not vindicate the machine.  Perhaps feedback, both internal and external,
>aid in creativity.

You still have no definition for creativity. Defining waves by saying:
"swim, there are waves", says nothing about the physical principles
concerning waves (can you define EM waves this way too?)

OC:
>>>>>   A computer does not have volition.  A computer does not have volition
>>>>>   because, even as a system, its behavior is presecribed and thus
>>>>>   predetermined.

PS:
>>>>Possibilities for hardware and software errors always exist.

OC:
>>>  But this is random and not under control.  Pure randomnimity is not
>>>volitional.

PS:
>>If volition is under control, then I do not see how cannot it be
>>presecribed and predetermined.

OC:
>  Huh?  Volition isn't under control--it is influenced.  Randomnimity
>denies volition, at a certain level,  but does not imply predetermination.

You can influence errors in hardware too by increasing (or decreasing) the quality 
of some components. Till what level do you want to influence a system?
Isn't this 'influencing' a kind of control, that requeries knowledge of 
the internal functioning of the system?

OC:
>>>>>   Predetermination denies volition which in turn denies meaning which
>>>>>   in turn denies understanding.

PS:
>>But you seem to say that volition is predetermined.
>>Your arguments are still not valid.

OC:
>  Volition is not predetermined--it is influenced.  A computer, on the
>other hand, has not volition even though certain outputs may not be
>predictable(even though, with rigourous enough analysis they can always
>be).

You mean that we cannot influence the way a computer works or what?
Your results are still not valid.

Philip Santas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: santas@inf.ethz.ch				 Philip Santas
Mail: Dept. Informatik				Department of Computer Science
      ETH-Zentrum			  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      CH-8092 Zurich				       Zurich, Switzerland
      Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-2547391
      


