Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Message-ID: <410@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jul 88 04:38:11 GMT
References: <8805151907.AA01702@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <445@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <2485@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 44

In article <2485@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>, cfh6r@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Carl F. Huber) writes:
) In article <306@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
) >Let's consider a relatively uncontroversial example.  Say I have
) >a hot stove and a pan over it.  At the entity level, the stove
) >heats the pan.  At the process level, the molecules in the stove
) >transfer energy to the molecules in the pan.
) > ...
) >Now, I can actually try to answer your question.  At the entity
) >level, the question "how do I cause it" does not really have an
) >answer; like the hot stove, it just does it.  However, at the
) >process level, one can look at the mechanisms of consciousness;
) >these constitute the answer to "how".
)
) I do not yet see your distinction in this example.
) What is the difference between saying the stove _heats_ or the
) molecules _transfer_energy_?  The distinction must be made in the
) way we describe what's happening.  In each case above, you seem to
) be giving the pan and the molecules volition.

[Minor nitpick: the pan and the molecules act, but volition and
action are not the same things. The discussion of the difference
belongs in a philosophy newsgroup, however.]

)                                                The stove does not
) heat the pan.  The stove is hot.  The pan later becomes hot.  Molecules do
) not transfer energy.  The molecules in the stove have energy s+e.  Then
) the molecules in the pan have energy p+e and the molecules in the
) stove have energy s.
)
) So it seems that both cases here are entity level, since the answer
) to "how do I cause it" is the same.  If I have totally missed the
) point, could you please try again?
)
) -carl

I think you missed the point. Perhaps I can fill in some missed
information. I think you got the idea that the process level
description could be made without reference to entities; this is
not the case. The process level MUST be made with reference to
entities, the main point is that these acting entities are not
the same as the entity involved in the entity level description.

Does that help? Also, could we move this discussion to another
newsgroup?