🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>(Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes: [Everything is a consequence
>>>> of the laws of physics...]

>>>(Chris Malcolm) asks: [...How is {some property of chess} the 
>>> consequence of the laws of physics?...]

>>(Paul Steven Mccarthy) answered: [...reductionism...]
>>     The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game.
>>     The rules of the game are the consequence of human perceptions
>>         of pleasure. [pleasure <-- nuero-chemistry <-- chemistry
>>                       <-- physics]
>> . . .
>> [reference to role of history... basic reductionism...
>>  probablistic determinism...]

>(Ken Presting) objects: [...]
>It may be easy to write off chess as defined only for human pleasure,
>but but such a move is not so easy for the rules of arithmetic, the
>rules of logic, or the rules of a Turing machine.  [...]

>The question of handling abstract rules in a physical system is very
>important for AI.  [...] 
>What is the relationship between processes, perceptions, and rules?

I make no claims to be a philosopher.  I will try to lay out the logic
behind my beliefs, but I am sure you could find more persuasive
arguments in "philosophy somewhere...".  Anyway, here goes:

At the end of my article I made quick reference to the historical 
aspects of the game, and an appeal to "probablistic determinism".
It occurred to me afterwards that the real crux of my beliefs stems
from probablistic determinism.  You set up the dominoes 'just right'
at the beginning, introduce a convenient cosmic big bang, wait a
few eons, ... and voila!  Here we are, with this particular world,
and all of its interesting properties.

As for the development of "logic", "arithmetic" and "Turing machines",
there was a non-zero probability at the beginning that the human
organism would evolve, that this organism would be curious about its
environment, that it would develop reasoning tools to help it 
contemplate that environment and ultimately that those reasoning
tools would manifest themselves in the form that they have.

It is basically a long chain of (yes :-) logic where I have tried
to look at the "big picture" and not been particularly concerned
with the details of intervening steps.  It seems to me that 
reductionism naturally leads to probablistic determinism.  It is
a belief in "cause and effect", where the underlying "causal force"
is the laws of physics -- just "the way the universe works".

I _believe_ that I am correct.  I _believe_ that the body of reasoning
tools developed by humans are valid for describing the properties
of the universe.  I also believe that this belief is a consequence of
"the way that the universe works" (nice and recursive, isn't it?! :-).  
I may be completely wrong, but I don't let myself worry about that too 
much.  I am a computer scientist, not a philosopher.

Now, Ken, don't you agree that this kind of discussion really belongs
in "philosophy somewhere..."?  I appreciate your opinions.  I have 
devotedly read the articles that you have posted to this newsgroup,
but I will not pretend that I have understood even 10% of their content.
There is certainly value in these kinds of discussions, but I think the
value is mis-placed here.  I must say that I even _enjoy_ these
philosophical digressions;  I just think they are more "philosophy"
than they are "artificial intelligence".  

Your awe-struck, but uncomprehending fan,
---Paul...