From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!psgrain!quagga!g89a2582 Tue Mar 24 09:56:14 EST 1992
Article 4500 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!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!psgrain!quagga!g89a2582
>From: g89a2582@alpha.ru.ac.za (Gary Allemann)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <g89a2582.700816441@alpha.ru.ac.za>
Date: 17 Mar 92 07:14:01 GMT
References: <1992Feb29.080019.9272@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar6.181656.7436@sun!kla>
Sender: usenet@quagga.ru.ac.za (Rhodes University NNTP server)
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Lines: 133

In <1992Mar6.181656.7436@sun!kla> kla!zardoz@sun.com (Phillip Wayne) writes:

>In article <1992Mar1.072408.25643@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>
>>
>[ deleted items ... ]

>There are a LOT of problems with these "Propositions". I will attempt to
>answer each.

>>  First Proposition:
>>   Truth can be obtained without understanding.  
>>    Ex: 2+2=4=2+2 is TRUE however the operators + and = do not themselves
>>    understand.

>The "operators" are not (in the true sense, at least) operators. Rather, they
>are the names of relations between the left and right hand side of the
>equations. If you want to say that understanding is being a member of a
>specific relation, then the operators do, indeed, understand.

This is a weak argument and seems to support proposition 1. 2+2=4=2+2 is true
precisely because the operators define relationships and it would be true 
irrispective of the meaning given to the symbols 2, +, 4 and =. This is where
the power of formal systems ( including deductive logic ) lies - truth is 
independant of meaning or understanding. I suggest you read Hofstadter -
"Godel, Escher, Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid" for a more detailed explanation. 
>>  Second Proposition:
>>   Understanding is a system relationship; but a particular kind of system.
>>   For example, as can be derived from the first proposition, the truth
>>   and the understanding to go with it requires that of which deems 
>>   2+2=4=2+2 to be TRUE and Meaningful.  The understanding of that proposition
>>   as True comes from the fact that True is itself meaningful.
>>

>If you define true as not meaningful, we can stop right here, since
>true has no meaning. Truth with a capital T is the reign of religious
>converts, politicians, and confidence men. If you want truth to mean
>(and I take this as your meaning) that a specific, testable relationship
>exits then you can not say that truth has no meaning. In other words,
>you want to have it both ways. A != !A if you are dealing with normal
>logic. You can't have it both ways.

No where in Proposition 2 is true defined as not being meaningful. In fact the
argument is attempting to point out that the relationship 2+2=4=2+2 is true only
because we do give meaning to the word TRUE. Similarly, A != !A is TRUE.
However, A != !A does not have meaning unless it is given meaning by us. We
choose to give the symbol = the meaning 'is equal to' and the symbol ! the 
meaning 'not' ( and all words the meanings that they are given ) but the 
example you have chosen shows that truth is independant of meaning by using
the meaningless symbol A to represent any proposition. 

>>  Third Proposition:
>>   Meaningfulness comes from volition.

>So books (having no volition) have no meaning. Mathematics (having no
>volition) has no meaning. Philosphy (having no volition) has no
>meaning. Language (having no volition) has no meaning. Words (having
>no volition) have no meaning. &c, &c, &c. 

Yes - in themselves words and languages certainly have no inherent meaning.
What is the meaning of the following sentence - Jy is 'n doos. It is a
recognised language. Or the following word - ghoti. It has meaning to me
but only because I give it meaning - not because the meaning is inherent. No
other person would necessarily be forced to give it the same meaning. The power
of cyphers lies in their having no universal meaning.

>This just gets sillier as it goes along.`

Yes - it does !

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

>By this definition, then, the earth's ecosystem (which it can not
>be denied is both dynamic and creative) has volition. 

>Sillier and sillier.

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

>The contents of a computer can change many millions of times in a
>second. Sounds pretty dynamic to me. Data structures are created and
>destroyed many times during the life of a computer. So how come it
>doesn't have volition, since it meets the criteria you formerly set
>up for volition? 

The criteria Mr  Onstott required for volition were both dynamism and 
creativity - not just one of the above.

>>
>>  Fifth Proposition:
>>
>>   Predetermination denies volition which in turn denies meaning which
>>   in turn denies understanding.

>If, by this you mean that anything predetermined has neither creativity
>nor dynamism, then, by your definition computers do not have predetermination.

>>
>>  Conclsion:
>>   A computer, as a system, lacks volition and thus lacks understanding.

>However, this is in complete disagreement with your own definitions of 
>volition and understanding. You did not draw you conclusion from your
>premises. You drew it from far left field.
> 
>>  OF COURSE, it could be said that a computer and a human working together
>>  comprises a system of understanding.  However, this is not the question
>>  at hand--the question is "Can the computer, by itself, understand?"
>>  The answer is "no."

>Once again, by your definitions, the computer is capable of understanding. 
>So why is the answer no?

>>  IF:
>>
>>   If you want to maintain that human has not volition; you also maintain
>>   that a human produces nothing meaningful and in turn deny that
>>   he has understanding.
>>

>Well, at least some of us produce something meaningfull. Others write
>(and answer :-) articles like this.

--
***     Gary Allemann, Rhodes University, STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY         ***
***                                                                          ***
*** There are three types of people in the world, those that can count and   ***
*** those that can't.                                                        ***


