Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!

From: Ron Allen (rallen2_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:12:36 -0400

Ron Allen wrote:
> A machine, like muscle, increases production.
> We do not say that a person's muscle produces;
> rather, we say that a person produces. So also,
> we do not say that a machine produces; rather,
> we say that the person, using the machine,
> produces.

Courageous wrote:
> I should imagine that you'll be rather bent out
> of shape when it's the machine entirely, doing
> the producing.

Albert wrote:
> Not until they are able to design, produce and
> maintain themselves.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Even if and when machines do all the producing,
> it will still be an anthropomorphism to say that
> the machines are producing.

jmh wrote:
> Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they
> start producing for themselves rather than
> people?

Ron Allen wrote:
> You're entering the realm of science fiction.

jmh wrote:
> If not then you are clearly defining productive
> as if it were only a human trait, i.e., an
> anthopomorphic claim, . . .

Ron Allen wrote:
> Yes, I believe I have made it very clear that I
> believe production is a distinguishing human
> attribute. To claim that a uniquely human
> attribute is a unique human trait is not an
> anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> It becomes that when the concept is not uniquely
> or even inherently a human phenomenon. You just
> take the effort one step farther and inorder to
> then turn around and say calling anything but
> humans productive is anthropomorphic.

Ron Allen answers:
To say that only human beings produce is not an
anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> You are the one attempting to imbue the term
> productive with human forma and cahracteristic
> when it's not unique to humans. That no
> different than poets making anthropomorphic
> verse about a doe's eyes or a comfortable old
> chair. The deer's eyes do not show any human
> emotion and the furnature doesn't actually give
> any huuman warmth or compassion; likewise
> productive does not produce value but merely
> things that humans then value.

Ron Allen answers:
Production does produce what human beings value.
This is very true.

Ron Allen wrote:
> And if you claim that machines can produce for
> themselves, produce with a purpose and objective
> in "mind", then you are obviously making an
> anthropomorphic claim about machines.

jmh wrote:
> Don't be rediculous. I was claiming that the
> machines became self-aware and started to
> practice independant thought, developed machine
> interestes and wants then set about fulfilling
> those wants and interests. Nothing human about
> their actions or their thoughts. They would
> likely be quite alient to the human mind and to
> assume they would be like a human's would be to
> anthopomorphize the machine.

Ron Allen answers:
Human beings are productive beings; and to claim
that machines are productive, like human beings
are productive, is an anthropomorphic ascription,
attributing a uniquely human quality to machines.

jmh wrote:
> . . . and if you agree then you are defining
> productive as "self will" or "independant
> action", which is not what productive has ever
> meant.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To produce is to have a purpose, an objective.
> To produce with an intention, with a design,
> with a plan, is to possess a volition and an
> intellect. I do not attribute such human
> qualities as volition, intention, intellect,
> etc. to machines.

jmh wrote:
> So you claim that an apple tree has the
> objective of producing the apple?

Ron Allen answers:
No. When we say that apple trees produce apples,
we are employing an anthropomorphism. There is
nothing wrong with anthropomorphisms, until we get
into a more precise language in order to get to a
more concise knowledge.

jmh wrote:
> Or do you claim that the tree does not produce,
> or is not productive in producing, the apple?

Ron Allen answers:
An apple tree can be said to produce apples; but
always with an awareness that to say such a thing
is to use a metaphorical language. To produce is
to intend to produce. An apple tree tends to
generate apples, but does not intend to produce
apples.

jmh wrote:
> I can have a purpose without producing anything
> and I can have an objective without producing
> anything and I can produce without having either
> finally I can produce while having both a
> purpose and an objective.

Ron Allen answers:
I have said all that I could wish to say on this
subject.

<><><><><><><><><><>

"Silence is not always tact and it is tact that is
golden, not silence."
-- Samuel Butler

Relevant Pages