Think

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure you do know. Beetle's English isn't fantastic and you're not great at bridging the gap. Leeway ...

I suggested to him that it might be his English, but he emphatically denied it.

Originally posted by black beetle
Since we have no way to perceive any fact if mind does not perceive it, fact is mind depentent😵

Fact may be mind dependent, but I don't think this conclusion follows from what you say here. I think it only follows from what you say above, that the perception of fact is mind dependent.

Originally posted by black beetle
They act according to their program and the result of their calculations is hardly predictable😵

Actually it is predictable, basically all a computer is a very fast adding machine.
You put in set numbers, you get predictable results out. If it were not so we
would not have a use for them, can you imagine trusting your bank account on
something that wasn't?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually computers only do what we tell them to, or what we design them to
do.

That is simply not true. Computers are as dependent on their environment as we are, and environment can include everything from non-human inputs to random internal factors. And no, simply saying 'but they were designed that way' doesn't make your statement true, it just makes it meaningless. One could potentially say 'computers were designed to do anything, so anything they do is by design', but it would not make as much sense as it seems to.

Originally posted by vistesd
“Since there is no telling in advance where it may lead, reflection can be seen as dangerous. There are always thoughts that stand opposed to it. Many people are discomfited, or even outraged, by philosophical questions. Some are fearful that their ideas may not stand up as well as they would like if they start to think about them. … Reflection opens an a ...[text shortened]... umptive beliefs, and the ideological “closed circles” that sometimes seem used to fence them in.

I think you are exactly right, vistesd. Religion consisting of little more than assent to doctrine is cheap religion indeed. If the truth is there to be had, why settle for the fence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. Computers are as dependent on their environment as we are, and environment can include everything from non-human inputs to random internal factors. And no, simply saying 'but they were designed that way' doesn't make your statement true, it just makes it meaningless. One could potentially say 'computers were designed to do anything, so anything they do is by design', but it would not make as much sense as it seems to.

They behave the way we design them to otherwise we would have no use
for them. They are dependent on their environment yes as all things are, you
drop one in the lava of a volcano they will stop functioning, you apply to much
power they will stop functioning. They function within the environments we
design them to work in, they do what we designed into them. Does that mean
we always know the outcome beforehand, no. Yet that does not mean that they
are not doing what we design into them. If they started acting outside of their
function such as getting a math problem wrong they would be worthless and
untrustworthy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
They behave the way we design them to otherwise we would have no use
for them.

So you are going with the 'we designed them to do anything, therefore they do what we designed them to' defence?

They are dependent on their environment yes as all things are, you
drop one in the lava of a volcano they will stop functioning, you apply to much
power they will stop functioning.
I was not referring to this kind of thing.

They function within the environments we design them to work in, they do what we designed into them. Does that mean we always know the outcome beforehand, no. Yet that does not mean that they are not doing what we design into them. If they started acting outside of their function such as getting a math problem wrong they would be worthless and untrustworthy.
Yet they constantly do things we did not expect and did not intend them to do when we designed them. Sometimes this even turns out to be useful.
Also, programmers in general find uses for them that they were not specifically designed to do. Sometimes this is even not what the owner wants (think of virus' for example).
I am starting to think that you have never seen the famous 'blue screen'. Or were computers designed to do that too?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suggested to him that it might be his English, but he emphatically denied it.

Probably your interpretation of his English.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. Computers are as dependent on their environment as we are, and environment can include everything from non-human inputs to random internal factors. And no, simply saying 'but they were designed that way' doesn't make your statement true, it just makes it meaningless. One could potentially say 'computers were designed to do anything, so anything they do is by design', but it would not make as much sense as it seems to.

I think I'm having trouble understanding you.

What role does design play in the functioning of a computer?

Originally posted by JS357
Fact may be mind dependent, but I don't think this conclusion follows from what you say here. I think it only follows from what you say above, that the [b]perception of fact is mind dependent.[/b]

I think my conclusion is accurate, I will try to explain it better. Since the perception of the fact is mind dependent, we simply cannot know whether a fact happaned or not if we are not aware of its occurence. Therefore mind and the perception of the fact mutually arise. Mind you, I do not propose that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, then the tree has not fall". I just say there is no way for us to determine the occurence of this event😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think I'm having trouble understanding you.

What role does design play in the functioning of a computer?

It plays a large role, but it is nevertheless a role and not the be all and end all of a computer. It also depends on whether you are including code and data as "design" or "environment". If code and data are "design" then am I too part of the "design" when I type on it? If I draw a pretty picture on it with my mouse, then was it designed to draw that picture? Or did it, in combination with the environment, achieve something unexpected (as far as the designer was concerned)?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It plays a large role, but it is nevertheless a role and not the be all and end all of a computer. It also depends on whether you are including code and data as "design" or "environment". If code and data are "design" then am I too part of the "design" when I type on it? If I draw a pretty picture on it with my mouse, then was it designed to draw that pic ...[text shortened]... th the environment, achieve something unexpected (as far as the designer was concerned)?

You drew the picture, not the computer. You're confusing the cartoonist with the pencil.

The tool (computer, pencil) limits and enables the field of productivity potentially available to the user (you can't do an oil painting with charcoal, but you can accomplish spectular drawings nonetheless). But spectacular drawings are achieved by spectacular artists, not spectacular pencils.

What we want, I suppose, is evidence that the computer can draw independently.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You drew the picture, not the computer. You're confusing the cartoonist with the pencil.

No, I am not.
To what extent are pencils 'designed' to draw pictures? Are they also designed to draw building plans? If someone draws something unexpected, was that all part of the design?

What we want, I suppose, is evidence that the computer can draw independently.
Why? Is the artist part of the environment or part of the design? When a computer is used to produce a great work of art, was that what it was designed for?
When kelly said:

Actually computers only do what we tell them to, or what we design them to do.

Is this a case of "what we tell them to"?
If so, then what if my cat was the painter?
What if the painter was the wind (I have hooked up my mouse to a wind vane)?
Does this mean that "what we tell them to" is synonymous with "any environmental impact whatsoever"?

As I said earlier, we are going down the road of "they are designed to do anything so anything they do is by design".

Originally posted by black beetle
I think my conclusion is accurate, I will try to explain it better. Since the perception of the fact is mind dependent, we simply cannot know whether a fact happaned or not if we are not aware of its occurence. Therefore mind and the perception of the fact mutually arise. Mind you, I do not propose that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there t ...[text shortened]... ee has not fall". I just say there is no way for us to determine the occurence of this event😵

Yes, there is no knowing before there is knowing.

We can imagine a model of the world in which what is known, comes to be and persists only so long as it is known, or we can imagine a model of the world in which the known exists and persists before and during those times it is not known. I think we tend to accept the latter model as "real" except when doing philosophy. 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are going with the 'we designed them to do anything, therefore they do what we designed them to' defence?

[b]They are dependent on their environment yes as all things are, you
drop one in the lava of a volcano they will stop functioning, you apply to much
power they will stop functioning.
I was not referring to this kind of thing.

T at you have never seen the famous 'blue screen'. Or were computers designed to do that too?

[/b]" Yet they constantly do things we did not expect and did not intend them to do when we designed them. Sometimes this even turns out to be useful.
Also, programmers in general find uses for them that they were not specifically designed to do. Sometimes this is even not what the owner wants (think of virus' for example).
I am starting to think that you have never seen the famous 'blue screen'. Or were computers designed to do that too?"

I get that they constantly do things we did not expect, our ability to grasp why
again does not mean it isn't doing what we designed it too, it only shows our
limited ability to grasp the reason for the output. Blue screens are by design, it
breaks down you an error message telling you something about the fault.
Kelly