From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!network.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman Tue Mar 24 09:57:13 EST 1992
Article 4591 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2351 comp.ai.philosophy:4591
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!network.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman
>From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals (was re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.175355.4073@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 00:53:54 GMT
References: <1992Mar16.003442.9891@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar15.233805.3026@hellgate.utah.edu> <1992Mar17.085639.9836@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar17.221405.2450@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 30

In article <1992Mar17.221405.2450@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Mar17.085639.9836@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Mar15.233805.3026@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>>
>>>  Lets look at the world as having some things which are considered to
>>>have volition.  What does this really mean?  It is operating on its own,
>>>of its own intent. It is operating OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK of external
>>>things, it is operating on its own.
>>
>>Do you mean that such things do not obey to ANY laws?
>>That they are not deterministic? That they are random?
>>
>  I am not sure what Tolman's response would be.  However, I am not
>certain that they would be free from ANY laws; hence, they are not
>perfectly deterministic.  Further randomity denies volition; therefore,
>they are not random.

  I am fairly certain what his response would be.  It would be "you are all
wet".  (I agree with the statement they are random)
 Also, be careful when you type, for you seem to say: 


  Things that are random are not perfectly deterministic.  I think you
meant to say "not perfectly NONdeterministic".

  And in fact I AM saying that they are perfectly nondeterministic. If
they were not, one would have to figure out the correlation.  Whatever
correlation would be accounted for, and this would then be entirely 
nondeterministic. 


