From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:57:20 EST 1992
Article 4601 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2361 comp.ai.philosophy:4601
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals (was re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.065543.20650@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 06:55:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: a.1992Mar19.065543.20650
References: <1992Mar17.085639.9836@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar17.221405.2450@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar18.175355.4073@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 47

In article <1992Mar18.175355.4073@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>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".


  I think that things that are random are neither "perfectly deterministic"
nor "perfectly nondeterministic."  However, I see no possible way for
you to connect volition to pure randomity.  Randomity precludes volition.
Please argue otherwise.  Further, to assume non-determinism-->random
is illogical--esp., when talking about volition.


BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


