Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!mtuxo!lzfme!jwi
From: jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: Anomaly
Keywords: Observer, Feedback Loop, Values, Goals, Caring
Message-ID: <1349@lzfme.att.com>
Date: 16 May 89 17:27:33 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Organization: AT&T, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 108

In article <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>, brianc@daedalus (Brian Colfer) writes:
| In article <1309@lzfme.att.com| jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes:
| |In article <52019@linus.UUCP|, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:

| || A better strategy is to empower a system to become self-regulating.
| || To do this, one abandons the notion of control in favor of the notion
| || of reliable observer.  The observer doesn't direct the system, it
| || merely reports actual behavior relative to a goal.  While this idea
| ...
| || To summarize, in order to empower ourselves to achieve high levels
| || of autonomous self-control, we have to pay close attention to each
| || other.  Another word for that is Caring.
| ||         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

| |Another word for that is not *caring.*  The word is *manipulation.* 
| |It depends entirely on whether the *victim* of this *observation*
| |perceives the attempted behavior modification as in the victim's own
| |interest or not, and on the victim's personal reaction to
| |manipulation attempts.

| The fundamental basis of Behaviorism is that we are material beings.
| There is no evidence that there are any other causes for our behavior
| other than genetics, experience (biological and psychological), and 
| current environment.  That's it! ... nothing else!  
| 
| Why should our ablility to describe the behavior relationship for 
| things in a human skin be different than anything else?

Cause we ain't smart enough to describe something that complex.

| |The problem with your approach is that it assumes a rational
| |victim. There are those who will react negatively to any attempt to
| |manipulate them without their prior permission (or even with it) and
| |who will not just simply hide from the _observer_ or _witness_, but
| |execute revenge against being controlled (even if the control is in
| |their own interest, and even if the revenge is against their own
| |interest).

| |You cannot assume that agreement about the desirability of achieving
| |a goal will be sufficient for acceptance of a witness. The actual
| |presence of the witness may invoke negative reactions that will
| |subvert the achievement. In short, there are some people who cannot
| |be controlled. There are some people who will react violently
| |to attempts to control them regardless of your reasons for doing
| |so. There are some people who will cooperate with you unless you
| |attempt to control them.
| 
| The assumption that one can will to react negatively is incorrect.
                              ^^^^
Actually, it depends on whether or not I'm bored today.  (If I am, I
will react negatively just for the excitement. Never take comp.ai
seriously.)

| *ALL* people with an **percise** configuration of genectics, previous
| history and current environment will *always* react negatively.

Unless they're already having a good time.

| The closer a particular person's configuration matches this 
| the higher the probablitiy for a negative reaction.

In a quantum universe, you probably can't determine this.

| My question is why would any one think that 
| 1) we are more than materialistic beings ... what valid evidence is there? 
| Valid in the sense of observable, reliable and well constructed measures.

Best evidence that we are only materialistic beings is the front
page of the New York Times.  Best evidence that we are more than
materialistic beings is the front page of the National Enquirer.

| 2) is the Behaviorist explanation of behavior accurate... that is, it works 
| so often that we can call it accurate.

Only for people who don't generate random numbers to liven things
up.  Same goes for those who take the Devil's Advocate position to
liven things up.  Sorry, there's always somebody who wants to throw
a monkey into the works -- probably the same people who react
violently to being controlled except when they want to screw up the
statistics.

| I question the frequency of the explanation working only conceding that 
| genetic/biological explanations may be more powerful than the
| Behavioristic ones.

I don't understand the above sentence

| 3) if 1 and 2 are true is it immoral to not apply these explanations
| in ways that can help people?   e.g. Teach people lots of info in non-
| coercive environments, help the mentally ill... help people work
| better ... airline maintenance, air traffic controllers etc.

The best way we can help people is to stop exceeding the carrying
capacity of the planet.  We have over populated the place to the
extent that it must soon collapse.  Any application of any
principles to helping people needs to result in fewer people.  The
advantage of the irrational victim is that it usually results in
either one less victim, or one less controller, or both.  (8-}
for those who take this stuff seriously and 8-{ for those who don't.)

Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi 

I believe in absolute freedom of the press.
        Pax Probiscus!  Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89%
        of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter).
        Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully.
        The opinions expressed here are not necessarily  
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.