Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 19:20:40
In reply to Re: your banishment » lil' jimi, posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 18:38:38
though i should add (very briefly)
that (IMO) "Freedom Evolves" deteriorates rather once he gets to the end of contemplating the life world...you aren't going to get fully fledged intentionality (or fully fledged freedom either) from considering chess playing turing machines in the life world...
(the thought with chess playing computers is that... regardless of the hardware (and physical laws)... regardless of the software (and design rules)... sometimes it is just more computationally tractible and faster for our purposes (real time constraints finite minds etc) to consider the chess playing computer from the intentional stance
'oh. it believes that if it moves its queen just so then it will get me in check and it desires to get me into check and that is why i predict it will move its queen just so...'.
but... does a chess playing computer REALLY have beliefs and desires??? or just METAPHORICALLY? but then... do people REALLY have beliefs and desires??? or just METAPHORICALLY? and that is the problem of intentionality...
hmm.
but my point is that the chess playing computer doesn't seem to have mental states in quite the same way we do...
and stuff in the life world doesn't seem to have freedom in quite the same way we do...
though to be fair he is more interested in 'rudimentary' mental states and 'rudimentary' freedom. kind of... the 'missing link'
(though i'm fairly interested in the prospects for a three dimensional life world with 5 (or is it 7) 'fields' superimposed the way the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc is supposed to be)
anyway...
point is... its still a jump from there to the distinctively human variety of freedom that we want...
:-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:558860
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/579067.html