DM: Thermostats act in a determined way most of the time, but this includes breaking down eventually, the timing of which is unpredictable, there may be choice in this timing, i.e nature choses. There are no laws here, a probability always means there is a dynamic & possibly active aspect. You can try to fudge this but it is just trying to cover up what I mean by active. I don't suggest this may not be intentionless, but it may also not intended, this is what we mean by agency/action and we attribute choice to many systems but there is no clear cut line to call some behaviours agentive & others mechanistic or law-like. The agentive ascription of a 'thou' and not an 'it' is one we choose, I see no knock down way to make this choice.
[Case] There was a lengthy thread on this topic not long ago. All I can say now is what I said then. In my opinion words like awareness, desire, purpose, agency etc apply at minimum to organisms with nervous systems. These concepts imply to me the ability to compare present stimulus to past occasions and to model future probabilities. To speak of inanimate or mechanical devices has having these properties it just bad use of metaphor. I works for me to explain something about a computer by talking about it thinking and trying to member and so forth but this is just an oversimplification or over complexification if you prefer. DM: It is weak but it is part its got the basic form of an end that directs the choices being made and how strong it might get is far from clear cut I'd suggest, even though I think that such 'willing' is likely to be weak in many cases. [Case] An end in this sense is a model of the future based on experience of the past. It is assuredly not an event in the future exerting some mysterious pull on the present. Cause and effect have suffered much abuse during the last century but certainly not that much. Even in probabilistic form they do not lend themselves to the future causing the present. DM: Seems to me there is a judgement call here and its a tricky one. More tricky than you want to admit. It would be an equal mistake to judge human beings to be inanimate automatons but you could and it is not easy to entirely dismiss. The 'feeling' aspect and agentive aspects of behaviour that we call animate begin at some level and most certainly evolve, but at what level, they may be entirely absent is simply impossible to judge and to my mind all behaviour has an active aspect even if this means rigidly'obeying laws' [Case] As a good solipsist I have no more grounds for judging other animate beings as being endowed with these traits than I do seeing them in rocks. I do assume common ground with my fellow man through a leap of faith. I accept the validity of inferring that we share similar experiences, because we are very similar. I do not see this degree of similarity in rocks or even plants. Nor do I think that following rigid laws of nature implies agency or active involvement of any kind. There is a natural tendency to see things this way I will grant you. Children infer this kind of agency at an early stage but most of us out grow it. Primitive people seem to do this to but they suffer from reduced options. DM: Why? And why does it give you a twitch? [Case] Because as I said, it seems to me to be a regression to a more primitive mode of thinking. It provides an illusion of solidarity where none exists. But in the end I do not see how returning to this kind of thinking enhances understanding. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
