turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/02/90)
----- In <ZCN%#J*@rpi.edu> kyriazis@iear.arts.rpi.edu (George Kyriazis) writes: > ... Neurons definetely cannot comprehend human behaviour, so a > human (being part of a society) cannot comprehend the behaviour > of the society. So, even if the organized behaviour of the human > society exists, I think we won't be able to realize its existance! There are only two things wrong with this jewel of thought. First, its conclusion runs against fact. Not only does the behavior of human society exhibit certain properties, a few of these are quite well understood, as Mr Kyriazis might learn in an introductory economics course. Second, the deduction is invalid; it commits the fallacy of composition. Mr Kyriazis should note that not only are neurons incapable of comprehending neurons, they are also incapable of comprehending cells, mitochondria, molecules, atoms, and NAND gates. What should we conclude about humans comprehension because of this? Argument from analogy is very dangerous. Minimally, one should be sure that the analogy does not break down precisely in the areas that are important for the argument. (Except for the sense described by McCarthy in which a thermostat comprehends what it means to be too hot, neurons are incapable of understanding *anything*.) I expect this kind of sloppiness in any newsgroup with "talk" or "religion" in its name, but I have better hopes for comp.ai.philosophy. Russell
richardh@hpopd.HP.COM (Richard Hancock) (10/03/90)
You might find semiotics (the theory of signs) interesting - meaning exists only through "common consent", ie. by the existence of a common signification function by which signifieds are associated with signifiers. The seminal work is "General Course in Linguistics" by Ferdinand de Saussure (an English translation exists).
jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy) (10/08/90)
I never said that a thermostat "comprehends what it means to be hot". I said that the thermostat "believes the room to be too hot", or rather that the thermostat can usefully be ascribed that belief. Comprehending what it means to be hot is a far more complex property than believing the room to be too hot on particular occasions, and artificial systems that can usefully be ascribed the former don't (so far as I know) exist today.