Re: Where's Dawn?

fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rosemary:

fergus wrote:
Rosemary wrote:
fergus wrote:
Rosemary wrote:

Well, it's difficult to talk about it in a way that makes sense without
using words that imply that I mean something other than what I'm saying,
simply because our language is based upon the assumption that free will
exists. It's like when chemists say that such-and-such a substance likes
to do this, or is trying to do that.

People do tend to anthropomophise (sp?) and attribute human feelings
and motives to inanimate things.

People also make the mistake of thinking that a person speaking in that
mode is in fact attributing human feelings and emotions to inanimate
things. You'd have to be mad to think that a chemical has motivation
and reasons for doing things - but speaking as if that were the case is
a useful problem solving tool. Thing is, just 'cos you're speaking that
way doesn't mean you're anthropomorphising anything at all: you're just
adopting a useful way of thinking about an aspect of reality.

But, when you say "I'm trying to live
in a certain way" and when you say "such and such a substance is
trying to do this" aren't you knowingly using the word "try" in
different ways?

It looks like that to me - but why not? English is a vague language
full of traps like that. It's why it's important to get the semantics
straight, or you get people arguing nonsensically due to differing
interpretations of words.

The fact that we can have this conversation implies to me that we have
some freedom of choice.

Why>

If we were just machines then it wouldn't be an issue.

We are `just' machines as far as I can tell - complicated
electro-chemically run biological machines, but machinery's all I can
see.

For sure those who suffer from religious mania think that there's a
`soul' that's part of people which could be used to distinguish us from
machines - but a lot of religious maniacs say that animals don't have
souls, so the presence or absence of the fictional `soul' cannot be used
to distinguish `living machines' from `dead machines'.

Even if free will is an illusion, and we are just monitoring what the
machines are doing rather than influencing them then there is an "I"
which is doing the monitoring and has an opinion on what is going on.
I just don't see how that can be possible if everyhing is
deterministic.

I never said everything was deterministic.

well, ok, but I think you did imply that our actions are deterministic
by saying we don't have choices.

I think you're ignoring our environment and what the words might mean.
We don't have many choices as such - by which I mean `we don't actually
sit down and work things out to decide what to do as we think we do, we
just do what our brains have told us to do in response to our
environment, just like any other animal'.

Now, if our environment `is' deterministic, then our actions `are'
largely also deterministic. But I see no evidence to suggest that our
environment `is' deterimistic (btw, this sort of language is nonsense
and impossible to express in E').

<snip rat stuff>

I must admit that the tails put me off, but I don't know why. Dogs and
cats have tails and that's part of the attraction.

Because they're scaly, reptilian, and as long as the rat's body?

could be :-). But why would that make them less attractive?

You're a mammal. Rat's tails look non-mammalian.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Vista Problem(Index.dat)
    ... language, then we agree. ... I thought you were saying that machines (the ... "environment") simply had to get faster to compensate for VB.NET's slowness. ... ¤ Would you prefer that I said "the implementation of the language"? ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Is sentience an emergent brain behavior?
    ... I can give examples of learning machines that can change their ... not the environment. ... defective understanding of behaviorism that there's no point taking you ... behaviors without opening up the internals of a chess program I would ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol
    ... machines at the time were the IBM 7090 and similar 7040. ... the 14xx line had grown to become the dominant business computer. ... Programmers won't put up with cryptic languages like C++ ... They'll use a language they can understand at a glance. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: What does the future of computing hold?
    ... sophisticated views about boiling language down or not. ... deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think, ... We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at ... For ethical reasons, you cannot grow human babies to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: What does the future of computing hold?
    ... sophisticated views about boiling language down or not. ... deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think, ... We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at ... humans are. ...
    (comp.programming)