[Wittrs] Re: SWM: A tale of two stances
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:59:58 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> > Note, he says "influence", not cause. This difference may be trivial
> > to you but it is the whole story for me.
>
> The difference is trivial. If you don't see it as trivial, then you
> probably have the wrong idea about cause.
Or, perhaps, you do. The match doesn't influence the paper to burn. The
paper has no choice. My wife influences me to burn the paper. The choice
is mine.
> But what is meant by "inner life".
That one acts on the basis of reasons (as me above) and not simply by
causation, as the burning paper does.
> That "directly caused by a prior condition" part is just as
applicable to a person as it is
> to a mechanical robot. I have no doubt that a computer has some sort
of inner life.
That is wonderful that you have created a being (in the form of a
computer) with an inner life of choice and reason. If I ever met your
computer I would treat it with the respect it deserves as a person. As
for my computer, it simply responds to key strokes like a Zombie.
Obviously I disagree with your STANCE. But I recognize it as an option.
You can elect to treat everything and everyone as determined by prior
programming and external causes. But one question. Did you freeoly
choice this stance or was it caused by whatever and hence you had no
option?
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
