On May 14, 11:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> > On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
> >> in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
> >> view are orthogonal.
> > I am denying that meaningful decisions, learning, or reinforcement are
> > possible in a deterministic world.
> Perhaps decisions, learning and reinforcement are possible in a
> deterministic world but they are not meaningful in the sense you want.
> Would you allow that?
I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
form of decision, learning, or reinforcement. If comp were true that
would have to be the case, but I see the symbol grounding problem/use-
mention distinction as revealing why comp is not likely to be true.
We may use the words 'learning' or 'deciding' figuratively to describe
what a machine does, just as we might anthropomorphize a car's
transmission as 'not wanting to go into fourth gear' or something, but
there is no literal experience of learning, deciding, or wanting that
is going on at the level at which we relate to the machine (individual
physical pieces of machine material may have experiential events of
some kind on a molecular level that might involve some quorum
mechanical decision making, but that doesn't scale up into a greater
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at