Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Making fires and making minds - the laws of physics prevail :-) Message-ID: <2792@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 14 Apr 89 08:53:51 GMT References: <10992@bcsaic.UUCP> <16878@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 53 In article <16878@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: > >For causation in macro-level behavior to be of a >different type than that of particle physics, you would have to be able to >perform some action not in accordance with the predictions of particle >physics. That is, you would have to violate physical law in order to >follow some other. No I wouldn't. I just exercise choice within the bounds of the laws of physics. >news of that caliber would be hard to miss. You missed it though. The differences are due to intentionality. Newton didn't have to consider it. Psychology does. In the design of a physical experiment, one does not have to worry about the subject matter sussing out what you're up to. In much experimental design in psychology (not the sort I prefer either), considerable effort is expended on stopping subjects working out the purpose of the experiment. This governs the way psychologists do experiments, and the ways in which we can interpret them. >Your body is a _completely_ physical system. Therefore it is >governed _completely_ by physical laws. Your apparent ignorance is astounding. You must be overlooking things. Language obeys far more than the laws of physics, and the laws of physics *CANNOT* explain language. Nor do they explain problem solving, mathematical reasoning or the history of Art. Still, I doubt that you know anything about these areas, so your argument is unsurprising. Other branches which require MORE THAN physics to explain them are biology (the originator of systems thinking) and, I am told, Chemistry. Chess doesn't obey the laws of physics either. > Nuts. I suppose the first caveman to build a fire had a complete >understanding of it? Fire isn't an artefact, it's a natural phenomenum. No deliberate attempt to 'simulate' fire was likely in its discovery. AI is a deliberate and conscious attempt to construct an ill-defined social construct. The analogy with fire has no intellectual credibility. Better analogies are 'artificial justice', 'artificial reasoning', 'artificial love', 'artificial dignity' and 'artificial consciousness'. Nothing useful comes from an analogy between making fires and making minds. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert