Continuing on this thread then...
Someday, we may be convinced, perhaps via a mature version of the
Turing Test, that a man-made AI system can indeed interact in a human
manner.
On that day, I will concede that perhaps there is a manual that can be
used to correctly predict human interaction; better yet, a manual that
can guide a person (or AI?) to achieve specific goals with other humans.
Someday, we may be convinced, perhaps via a mature *science" of
psychology, that humans are (in part?) rule-governed systems, with
documentable IO states (to borrow one computational model).
On that day too, I will need to concede that some part of a manual has
been written that predicts and describes human interaction (or at least
the actions of a specific human in a specific context).
In fact, I expect to see both of these events occur within my life time.
BUT...
Neither of these is sufficient to indicate that humans are better
treated as rule-governed systems. The question is: How do we best
treat a person to bring out the most valued qualities in that person.
I'm agnostic, leaning towards atheistic on this one.
Why? I've observed that humans (and all living things) react better to
respectful and dignified treatment than they do to the lack of these.
However, I do concede that some people best learn from reading manuals
and how-to books.
ESR seems to be promoting that a geek can meet his (yes, his) goals by
treating others as rule-governed systems, at least in part.
Now to take this to the extreme... (why not.. its fun!)
If humans can successfully be treated *only* as rule-governed systems
then
a) the rules are not accessible to the individual
b) the rules are accessible to the individual
If a) is true then the person cannot re-write the rules. If b) is
true, they the person may be able to re-write the rules, and defeat
being predictably rule-governed. (Think of a game of Nomic).
Several things we take for granted, perhaps falsely, are at stake if a)
is true: free will, self-awareness, caring about morality, etc... In
other words, the values of an anarchistic platform are being called
into question by ESR's casual assumption that some people are in some
cases rule-governed.
So I'm saying that ESR's overall philosophical position has cracks in
it. And yes, he is wonderfully well-spoken. It is that he can write
so well that allows clear and easy discussion of his views.
(This argument wouldn't get even a C in grad school, but it's fun after
all these years out of school.)
The idea that ESR is objectifying women is a very concise way of
beginning these conclusions.
Carolyn
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
