From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas Tue Mar 24 09:54:43 EST 1992
Article 4381 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4381 sci.philosophy.tech:2264
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!chx400!bernina!neptune!santas
>From: santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Infinite Minds? (was re: Definition of unders
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.165603.11788@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: 10 Mar 92 16:56:03 GMT
References: <1992Mar1.170031.9365@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar2.110028.13029@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar4.142249.9478@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch (Mr News)
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Lines: 211
Nntp-Posting-Host: spica.inf.ethz.ch


In article <1992Mar4.142249.9478@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Mar2.110028.13029@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
>santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:

PS:
>>>>>>Now the maximum number of conversations in ALL the existing and non-existing
>>>>>>languages and their combinations is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                n
>>>>>>                S m^i
>>>>>>               i=0 (absolute silence)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This theoretical object CAN speak in any language you can think or imagine
>>>>>>or whatever. It can do everything that has a verbal form. Of course not all
>>>>>>of these conversations are acceptable. But there is an upper limit as you see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you want to speak about images and not words, you can do relevant things with
>>>>>>pixels. There IS still an upper limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Plato's world of ideas IS finite for the mankind.

MZ:
>>>>>Nonsense.  Why is m, the number of all possible sign-types, a finite
>>>>>number?  Furthermore, if meaning is a function of the meaning of
>>>>>constituent sign-tokens, which in turn is context-dependent, there is
>>>>>yet another potentially infinite factor to be accounted for.

PS:
>>But there is still an upper limit on the number of all the possible
>>conversations (including those that have any meaning, and those
>>thast have absolutely NO meaning) you can lead in your life.
>>That means that there is s finite
>>number of concepts you can learn, imagine, express, etc.

MZ:
>Even so, it still doesn't follow that we have to choose them from a finite
>set of concepts, as your assertion that "Plato's world of ideas IS finite
>for the mankind" would seem to indicate.

Complex concepts are created by a combination of more simple ones.
The most simple concepts (which cannot be analysed any further) must
come from experience (via sences, language). 
Language was very important for Socrates and Plato.


MZ:
>>>This is just ridiculous.  "Digital functioning" is an *unverifiable* model.
>>>If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with the rest of the
>>>world.

PS:
>>An *unverifiable* model extremely useful in engineering and in every day life.
>>Movies, Cartoons, TV, CD, Cards etc, are all based in this model,
>>and they work perfectl (even my dog can watch TV although it does not smell).

MZ:
>Big deal.  The flat earth hypothesis resulted in some nifty maps, too.

Wrong analogy. The flat earth hypotheses contradicted certain physical laws,
and knowledge derived with the use of a more advanced tecnology. Presenting
Greenland bigger than Australia is an error and everybody knows this.
Satellites are NOT programmed to work with the help of such models.

There seems to be no evidence against "digital functioning" of the human 
nerves. Furthermore, humans have no problem to accept digitized picture
and sound. 
If humans do not operate under this model then they must have an 
"analogical functioning" which would observe all the problems related
to digital functioning: listening to a CD would have been nothing more
than listening to Morse code...

PS:
>>A model or a theory fails if there is evidence AGAINST it.
>>Can YOU share them with us?

MZ:
>I don't have to.  Since you are the one making a categorical claim, the
>burden of proof falls on you.  Show me that human mind has "digital
>functioning", and don't forget to define your terms beforehand.

Do not mislead us with wrong accusations about inadequate definitions.
Remember that _you_ are the one who gives no definitions, but still denies
the definitions of the others.

Since we do not have a big range of possibilities you have to show
why you think that nerves receive continiously stimulus.

PS:
>>I am wondering what you mean by understanding if you don't have a representative
>>pictue or text in your mind, or a Sartrian mechanism for the regeneration
>>of the experience.

MZ:
>I don't see any "representative pictures or text in [my] mind"; neither did
>Berkeley. As for Sartrian mechanism for the regeneration of the experience,
>I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage once again, as I've no idea what
>it might be.  Does it have anything to do with Wilhelm Reich and his orgone
>box?

No. Read Sartre (so that you can fill this knowledge hole in your side). 

On the other hand, Reich's orgone box was just a primitive implementation of 
Reich's theories and you cannot identify it 100% with them.

PS:
>>Can you give a clear definition of understanding?

MZ:
>No.  However I don't see it as reducible to phenomenal experience.

Since you do not have any definition, I suppose that your assumtions can
be wrong, and even if you don't see it as "reducible to phenomenal experience",
it does not prevent it from being very much reducible to it.

MZ:
>>>Moreover, modelling is not identity.

PS:
>>A model is the basis for the construction of a machine.
>>It is irrelevant if this machine is identical to you or me (since it is irrelevant
>>if you ar eidentical to me). The external behaviour of this machine is what matters.

MZ:
>I don't believe that.

Do you mean "believe" as in "Christians believe in God"?

MZ:
>>>I don't see the relevance of Russell's treatment of Meinongian possibilia
>>>to the issues we are discussing here.

PS:
>>There is relevance. Many of the concepts you can construct are simply
>>non existent since this construction derives from wrong usage of the language.
>>On the other hand many of your 'new' relations are nothing else but
>>a repetition of already mentioned reletions, so you can reject them.
>>I do not know if you can go like this till infinity.

MZ:
>So all that remains is for you to show that you can reject all but finitely
>many of them.  Looks like we're back where we started.

No we are not. You asked for relevance of Russell to this context. I gave it.
The rest is your conclusion; we do not have to deal with the problem of
rejection at all.

PS:
>>If you construct a finite number of definitions or axioms, then
>>it is possible that you can derive an infinite number of theorems.
>>Notice now that these theorems are already included in these definitions
>>although not discovered yet (if I remember correct, Heidegger mentions it).

MZ:
>Note that "construct" is certainly inappropriate in this context.  Try
>"discover".

_First concepts_ are indeed *constructed* from experience.
The _rest_ are discovered. There is no correction to be done.

PS:
>>Now if you accept that Plato means that ideas are ALL these theorems
>>(the shadows in the cave) then you may have right.

MZ:
>More than that, some Ideas are the truths that will never be discovered or
>enunciated.

I agree, IF I accept this definition.

PS:
>>But if the ideas are the basic concepts from which all the rest
>>derive (it seems pretty obvious to me, since Plato speaks about
>>cave, shadows, and some moments of light) then I do not see how
>>you have the possibility to make an infinite number of such theories.

MZ:
>Again, all I claim is that our conceptual world is not limited by our
>finite capabilities.

Your claim is wrong. Basic concepts derive frm experience (you can add here
any internal intuitions).

PS:
>>Before you make any criticism of my interpretation of Plato,
>>you better read his theories under a differnt perspective.
>>Plato used metaphors in an extremely high niveau, and therefore
>>any dogmatic interpretation of his concepts from your side is nothing else
>>but a fruitless Unsinn.

MZ:
>I'd choose dogma over inconsistency.  Happily, I don't have to choose either.

I do not see any inconsistency. Furthermore we have both seen a dogma.

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
 





     


