[Wittrs] Re: Following a rule
- From: JR Stern <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
>--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm saying there are at least two things going on there,
> > the computer hardware is operating at one level, and what it is
> > operating on is a program.
>
> The program makes subtle physical changes that alter the causal
> structure. The computer, running a program, is still acting as it does
> by virtue of physical causation. There's still no actual rule
> following.
At the lowest level, the computer hardware implements
a causal structure, that I agree is non-rule-following.
But, it uses this causal execution to make things happen
like "if pay>100 then print name, pay" which sure looks
like rule-following to me.
Let's review why something might or might not be rule-following.
First, we want to exclude nomological phenomena, like the
planets in their orbits. Fine, I think there are some things
like that in the universe which, as brute facts, are causal
processes and not logical or "rules".
Second, there are some things we *do* recognize as
rules. What are they, exactly? Interesting problem.
Exercising my particular-based nominalism, let's say that
if someone writes some rules down, and we can see that
some agency operates by checking the rules and acting
on them, then we have rule-following. The computer is
the archetype of rule-following.
Now, what about people? Do people ever follow rules?
They don't seem to do so as a causal necessity, though
one could argue the case. If they follow a rule by
choice, well, is that even rule-following as such?
Some of this may have been behind LW's skepticism
about rules. Other parts remain problematic.
--
Going back to computers, I went to recognize two
levels, the hardware level that is causal, and the
program level that is the paradigm case for rule-following.
So, when you (Neil) say that the computer "just"
is a machine that doesn't know symbols, at the low
level, I agree with you. However, at the high level,
I see symbolic programs being executed, and must see this
as rule-based systems being done by machines.
How do you like that?
Josh
ps - Yahoo is acting weird, so I am
sending this via email
Other related posts:
