From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: What makes a man a man
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 11:51:51 GMT

rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis) writes:

> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
> 
> >>The "divine" makes us different from machines? 
> 
> >Yes.
> 
> how.

Well, it makes us different because we have it, and machines don't. That is
*how* it makes us different. I think your real question relates to *what*
this difference really is

> >we are not *only* machines. A machine - or a stone - can be fully predicted
> >because it must obey known laws and has no choice in the matter. Cats have
> >some choice (let me tell you!) and humans have a lot of choice and cannot be
> >reliably predicted becaue they are not, except in their most basic material
> >nature, confined within laws of nature. 
> 
> >Because people and cats are material and are somewhat predictable some of
> >the time does not make them machines. They are not *only* material and the
> >*are* somewhat unpredictable.
> 
> If this is the basis of you argument, then this is where the argument fails.
> Just because you cannot personally predict exactly what someone will do,
> that does not mean it is not possibly, and isn't done.

No, it's not the basis of an argument, it's a demonstration or example with
which most people are liable to be familiar. There are a lot of things we
know which we cannot prove. I had a dream about cats last night. I can't
prove that, but I do know that. Should I disregard the knowledge because I
can't prove it?

We know that creatures of will are not fully predictable. Sometimes
predictable, yes, but not fully predictable. Now I can't *prove* that it
isn't possible to predict. No one could. Nor can one prove that it is
possible to predict because no one has managed to do it with any
reliability.

I know there are people who believe that humans are *just* complex
automatons which could be predicted and programmed thoroughly if only we had
enough information, etc. Of course, there is no way to *prove* this
experimentally. 

We are dealing with two different paradigms of what 'human' is. One looks at
the demonstrable fact that humans are 'machines' (which we are) and
extrapolates that observation to the conclusion that we are *only* machines.
The other sees humans as machines plus life plus consciousness plus
self-awareness. From that view, most of the most interesting things about
humans cannot be fully known just by looking at the mechanics and physical
mechanisms.

The first paradigm sees the universe as matter and energy. The material.

The second paradigm sees at least four orders of being in the universe:

1) material
2) life (material + life)
3) consciousness (material + life + consciousness)
4) self-awareness (material + life + consciousness + self-awareness)

The first paradigm restricts itself to observing the material, observable
phenomenon and proceeds to postulate material explanations for everything.

The second paradigm accepts inner experience as a fact just as important as
temperature or mass or velocity. Admittedly, you cannot always 'measure'
inner experience as easily as you can measure temperature. Nor can it be
understood, interpreted, or used in the same way that meter readings can.

Another illustration of the principle is this. Think of a book - an ordinary
book. Some number of printed pages bound in a hard, colourful, cloth cover.

One who has never seen a book asks "What is it?"

Now we can measure all of its attributes and come up with a detailed
physical description. But will its material description tell us what's
really important about this object?

It should be pretty clear that among the more important attributes of a book
is the fact that it contains words, information, ideas, knowledge - writing.
It should be clear that "A Tale of Two Cities" is of *different* value than
"How to write Unix shell scripts".

Now if you can't read - if you don't have any knowledge of writing - you
really can't discern anything about the 'higher' meaning of the book, let
alone read it.

So the material description of physical attributes of the book may well be
correct - but isn't very useful. In the same way a desciption of a man as a
machine is 'accurate' - but not very useful in thoroughly understanding what
the phenomenon is really all about.

"Proof" of the 'higher meaning' will be very difficult to establish in the
first case, to a person who cannot read and doesn't believe writing exists.
"Proof" in the second case is likewise difficult to establish to one who
doesn't believe man could be anything more than just a machine.

One can demonstrate to one's heart's content, but the skeptic will always
answer "How can you prove that your demonstration could not have been
accomplished using some other explanation?" Like "ok, we can't predict cats,
but that doesn't mean we couldn't . . . "

At that point one does have to simply recognize that it is true that "A man
only hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". If one really
doesn't want to see 'it', no matter what 'it' is, one won't.

A major issue in the computerization and mechanization of information and
communication pursuant to the rapidly expanding use of computers in the
world is, in my view, this question of the 'nature of knowledge'.

How do we think? How do our information and communication tools shape our
thought? Our understanding? Our knowledge?

There are many 'machine aspects' to all this - but there are also human and
social aspects. In order to consider the latter aspects, we have to start
from some idea of what a 'human' is and what a 'machine' is and what, if
any, are the differences between them. 

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------