🎯 ¿Cansado de los anuncios?
Elimínalos ahora 🚀

From this it is argued that we cannot be machines. I shall try to reproduce the argument, but I fear I shall hardly do it justice. It seems to run something like this: «if each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine. But there are no such rules, so men cannot be machines». The undistributed middle is glaring. I do not think the argument is ever put quite like this, but I believe this is the argument used nevertheless. There may however be a certain confusion between «rules of conduct» and «laws of behaviour» to cloud the issue. By «rules of conduct» I mean precepts such as «Stop if you see red lights», on which one can act, and of which one can be conscious. By «laws of behaviour» I mean laws of nature as applied to a man’s body such as «if you pinch him he will squeak». If we substitute «laws of behaviour which regulate his life» for «laws of conduct by which he regulates his life» in the argument quoted the undistributed middle is no longer insuperable. For we believe that it is not only true that being regulated by laws of behaviour implies being some sort of machine (though not necessarily a discrete-state machine), but that conversely being such a machine implies being regulated by such laws. However, we cannot so easily convince ourselves of the absence of complete laws of behaviour as of complete rules of conduct. The only way we know of for finding such laws is scientific observation, and we certainly know of no circumstances under which we could say, «We have searched enough. There are no such laws».

👉 Descargar el audiolibro GRATIS en Amazon
Reportar problema / Sugerencias