Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Discovering What Nature Wants
Keywords: Consciousness and Intentionality.
Message-ID: <2452@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 17 Oct 89 12:20:31 GMT
References: <357@massey.ac.nz> <2376@munnari.oz.au> <2394@uceng.UC.EDU> <74401@linus.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 16

In article <74401@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
: In article <2433@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
: >  But I can find no justification for these attitudes in my
: > biology textbooks (and yes I have read Maynard-Smith).

: I think you would be more likely to find them in books on Theology
: or Ethics than in books on Biology.  See, for instance, _The Tao
: is Silent_, by Philosopher/Logician Raymond Smullyan.

I was responding to ``Nature's children want to live and thrive, there is
evidence for that'' which seemed to be drawing some sort of ``nature is a
source of moral inspiration'' conclusion.  Sending me to books on the
supernatural (Theology) and on philosphy (Ethics) -- good advice --
reinforces my point that we must look for moral inspiration elsewhere.

If ``Nature'' can form intentions, it has a lot to answer for.