Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!oddjob!ncar!ames!necntc!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self Awareness
Summary: Ignorance does not justify barbarism.
Message-ID: <32390@linus.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 88 13:34:27 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <10942@sunybcs.UUCP> <31024@linus.UUCP> <1176@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Distribution: comp
Organization: International Malefactor & Fulminator, Roaring Rapids, ME
Lines: 40

In article <1176@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP
(Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>In article <31024@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes:
>>It is not uncommon for a child to "spank" a machine which misbehaves.
>>But as adults, we know that when a machine fails to carry out its
>>function, it needs to be repaired or possibly redesigned.  But we
>>do not punish the machine or incarcerate it.
>>
>>Why then, when a human engages in undesirable behavior, do we resort
>>to such unenlightened corrective measures as yelling, hitting, or
>>deprivation of life-affirming resources?
>
>Pray tell, how do you repair, or redesign
>a human?  Is "Clockwork Orange" the model we want to strive for?
>If you had a machine which was running amok, and you did not know
>how to repair it or redesign it, would not destroying it or isolating
>it from the objects of its aggression be a prudent course?  Punishment
>can serve to "redesign" the human machine.  If you have children, you
>will probably know this.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work with everyone.

We don't call it repair, we call it healing.  But your question is a
good one.  Unfortunately, I must confess to a lack of expertise on
the subject.  I am convinced that there is hope for healing the
human spirit, but I feel we have a long way to go before we get
very good at it.

In Clockwork Orange, there was a curious mix of well-intentioned
healers (the psychiatric staff), a doubtful theory (the Ludovico
technique), and some opportunist politicians.  I don't recommend
the Ludovico technique as a model of healing.

It seems to me that destroying something that one does not understand
is not a good policy.  Any agent who destroyed that which he did
not understand could plausibly be classified as an agent who was
"running amok".  By the Symmetry Principle, such an agent is inviting
his own destruction or isolation.  Could it not be that the "acts
of aggression" are really diagnostic messages, which when properly
interpreted, allow us to "repair/redesign/heal" the offending system?

--Barry Kort