Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!bloom-beacon!spdcc!merk!alliant!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Discovering What Nature Wants
Summary: Nature speaks, if one only has ears to listen.
Keywords: Consciousness and Intentionality.
Message-ID: <74029@linus.UUCP>
Date: 14 Oct 89 12:59:43 GMT
References: <357@massey.ac.nz> <2376@munnari.oz.au> <2394@uceng.UC.EDU> <73510@linus.UUCP> <2418@munnari.oz.au>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: The TaoLight Zone, Ste. Elsewhen
Lines: 57

In article <2418@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:

 > In article <73510@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:

 > > Einstein observed that Man is part of Nature, too.

 > From the rather banal observation that human beings exist,
 > no conclusions can be drawn about whether the scheme of
 > things can make mistakes UNTIL we have first established
 > that "is able to form intentions" (or some such property)
 > is one of the few properties which does transfer like that. 
 > This has not been done.

Are you telling me that you disbelieve that human beings are
capable of intentional behavior?

 > In fact there is a rather bigger presumption in this woodshed.  The
 > assumption is that ``Nature'' refers to something.  But what is the
 > genus of ``Nature'' and what are its differentia?  I have a strong
 > suspicion that ``Nature'' as a ``thing'' may be about as sensible as
 > a set of all sets.
  
I don't know.  Ask a taxonomist.

 > > Joseph Campbell suggests that we are Nature's Consciousness.
  
 > Well, it's a lovely sentiment, but what does it _mean_?  It
 > certainly can't be using "consciousness" in the way that it
 > is used when referring to people and animals.  Consciousness
 > generally includes the idea of awareness of one's surroundings,
 > and what are the surroundings of ``Nature''?  [It's a very
 > anthropocentric claim too, but that's another story.]
  
He also suggests that humans are not the only beings who possess
consciousness.  I happen to agree with him.

 > > So at least a part of Nature is personifiable and capable
 > > of intentional behavior.
  
 > Yes, but that demonstrates nothing about ``Nature'', any more than
 > the presence of metal fillings in my teeth proves _me_ to be made
 > of metal.

I don't follow your logic.

 > >  I sometimes make mistakes on behalf of Nature.
  
 > How do you know this?   How does the goddess Natura tell you
 > what she wants you to do on her behalf?  Does she appear to you
 > in a dream?

Sometimes.  And sometimes she appears to me in a posting on USENET
or on the face of a child who wanders into the Science Museum.
As near as I can tell, the Children of Nature wish to survive
and thrive.  The evidence for that is overwhelming.

--Barry Kort