Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!turpin
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Put in some effort (was: emergent properties)
Summary: Get rid of those tired, silly analogies.
Message-ID: <13080@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 22:37:58 GMT
References: <15132@venera.isi.edu> <18070001@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM> <ZCN%#J*@rpi.edu> <3145@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 29

-----
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