Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mailrus!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!zarnuk
From: zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Chess, Reductionism.
Summary: Okay, so flame me.  I think philosophy belongs elsewhere...
Message-ID: <49332c1a.1285f@maize.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 90 02:49:00 GMT
References: <491fffd5.1a4d7@cicada.engin.umich.edu> <2080@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <492e6ff2.1a4d7@cicada.engin.umich.edu> <kZzdH3600W0II0ZEZ3@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: zarnuk@caen.UUCP (Paul Steven Mccarthy)
Followup-To: philosophy somewhere... (please?)
Organization: caen (U Mich)
Lines: 20

(S. Narasimhan) writes:
>>>>(Paul Mccarthy) writes: [Everything is a consequence of the
>>>> of the laws of physics]

>>>(Chris Malcolm) asks: [...How is {some aspect of chess} a 
>>> consequence of the laws of physics?...]

>>(Paul McCarthy) responds:
>> [Chess <-- Human Pleasure <-- Nuero-Chemistry <-- Physics...
>>  history of game, Probablistic Determinism...]

>(S. Narasimhan) objects:
> [ ...Laws of physics vs reality... ontology... Pitfalls of causality...]

This is definitely straying very far away from my original statement.
The original assertion was simply that arguments based on "emergent
properties" do not convince me, since I am a reductionist.

---Paul...
(The opinions expressed are obviously mine, unless you share them. :-)