gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (04/14/89)
In article <16878@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: > >For causation in macro-level behavior to be of a >different type than that of particle physics, you would have to be able to >perform some action not in accordance with the predictions of particle >physics. That is, you would have to violate physical law in order to >follow some other. No I wouldn't. I just exercise choice within the bounds of the laws of physics. >news of that caliber would be hard to miss. You missed it though. The differences are due to intentionality. Newton didn't have to consider it. Psychology does. In the design of a physical experiment, one does not have to worry about the subject matter sussing out what you're up to. In much experimental design in psychology (not the sort I prefer either), considerable effort is expended on stopping subjects working out the purpose of the experiment. This governs the way psychologists do experiments, and the ways in which we can interpret them. >Your body is a _completely_ physical system. Therefore it is >governed _completely_ by physical laws. Your apparent ignorance is astounding. You must be overlooking things. Language obeys far more than the laws of physics, and the laws of physics *CANNOT* explain language. Nor do they explain problem solving, mathematical reasoning or the history of Art. Still, I doubt that you know anything about these areas, so your argument is unsurprising. Other branches which require MORE THAN physics to explain them are biology (the originator of systems thinking) and, I am told, Chemistry. Chess doesn't obey the laws of physics either. > Nuts. I suppose the first caveman to build a fire had a complete >understanding of it? Fire isn't an artefact, it's a natural phenomenum. No deliberate attempt to 'simulate' fire was likely in its discovery. AI is a deliberate and conscious attempt to construct an ill-defined social construct. The analogy with fire has no intellectual credibility. Better analogies are 'artificial justice', 'artificial reasoning', 'artificial love', 'artificial dignity' and 'artificial consciousness'. Nothing useful comes from an analogy between making fires and making minds. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert
) (04/17/89)
But maybe physics and chemistry can explain all. Yes, Chess and language can
be explained by physics and chemistry we just don't know how. Humans and
randomness can also be explained, not necessarily in human terms, but in the
extremes. We all originated from hydrogen atoms, and that is fact, if the
exact chemical and physical occurances could be know to us, of course this
information would be quite impossible to comprehend at this point in time, we
could explain emotion, creativity, and thinking itself in chemical and
physical terms.
//////
//
//////
//
//////omeonerjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) (04/17/89)
In article <2792@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >In article <16878@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: >> That is, you would have to violate physical law in order to >>follow some other. >No I wouldn't. I just exercise choice within the bounds of the laws of >physics. Name such a choice. There may be "choices" left open by "the laws of physics" since these are incomplete - they are just as much as physicists know. They were not the thing under discussion however; I know of no evidence that there is any choice in the operation of the physical universe - if someone pulls your chair out from under you you fall downwards, you do not have the option of floating where you are, >In the design of >a physical experiment, one does not have to worry about the subject >matter sussing out what you're up to. One has to worry about the performance of the experiment changing the behaviour of the thing being investigated. I fail to see the difference here. >>Your body is a _completely_ physical system. Therefore it is >>governed _completely_ by physical laws. >Your apparent ignorance is astounding. You must be overlooking things. >Language obeys far more than the laws of physics, and the laws of >physics *CANNOT* explain language. [ other examples ] Give the guy a break, it is pure sophism to use a slight mistake in his phrasing to attack his argument. In case it escapes you he meant to say that your body can not behave in a way which violates physical law. If you are going to argue by reversing the implication they how can you expect anyone to believe you? >Still, I doubt >that you know anything about these areas, so your argument is >unsurprising. Thank you for that useful contribution to the cause of rational debate. Such statments make me wonder if, in fact, the historians whom I have known have been aberrations since they have been capable of clear and objective argument without recourse to insults or sophistic trickery. ( yes, I know I have just been guilty of the same crime GIGO ). >> Nuts. I suppose the first caveman to build a fire had a complete >>understanding of it? >Fire isn't an artefact, it's a natural phenomenum. No deliberate >attempt to 'simulate' fire was likely in its discovery. Fire is a natural phenomeon ( or at least a cultural classification of a class of natural phenomena ). _A_ fire is an artifact. It is a deliberate attempt to construct a system whose behaviour includes burning. This turns out to be very easy to do since many of the conditions the system must fulfill are going to be true without effort ( eg easy access to a supply of oxygen ). If you want an example with a more obviously artificial feel, think of fission reactors. Here a partial model of sub-atomic phenomena was used to design a system which had a cerain property ( sustained chain fission reactions ). To the best of my knowledge physics does not have a complete knowledge of the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. >AI is a deliberate and conscious attempt to construct an ill-defined >social construct. The analogy with fire has no intellectual >credibility. You don't think `fire' is ill-defined? Place steel wool in chlorine and heat ( feel free to correct my memory of O-level chemistry ); it will react in a violent way. Is that `fire' - it was so described by my chemisty teacher. How about phosphorus in water. How about iron rusting in air? >Nothing useful comes from an analogy between making fires and making >minds. except to refute your statment that we would need to be able to totally define a phenomenon to reproduce it. -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna "Politics! You can wrap it up in fancy ribbons, but you can't hide the smell" - Jack Barron