Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nb.rockwell.com!mrbig!glass
From: glass@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim Glass)
Subject: Re: Freedom = Determinism = Random (The heck it does)
Message-ID: <1996Feb19.163234.27849@nb.rockwell.com>
Sender: glass@mrbig (Jim Glass)
Organization: Rockwell Info Sys
References: <4ean0d$q64@news.cc.ucf.edu> <4ectun$lkq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4edl00$d1o@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> <DMIKtB.BAB.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <1996Feb14.161059.1764@nb.rockwell.com> <Pine.HPP.3.91.960214143205.19427A-100000-100000@corpse.ecst.csuchico.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:32:34 GMT
Lines: 51
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:172098 comp.ai:37147 comp.ai.philosophy:37946 sci.philosophy.meta:24857

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960214143205.19427A-100000-100000@corpse.ecst.csuchico.edu>, "Thomas C. Taylor" <ttaylor@ecst.csuchico.edu> writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> > |> > I think that it is a myth that choice needs to be _random_ to allow us free 
|> > |> > will.  In fact, I believe the opposite to be true.  I believe we exercise
|> > |> > free will, not by making random choice, but by making determined decisions.
|> > |> > 
|> > |> > I see no paradox between determinism and a free choice, because I believe 
|> > |> > our decisions are determined, determined by us.
|> > |> 
|> > |> I think that we are deterministic automata.
|> > |> 
|> > |> Many people don't like my view and don't like the idea of a 'soul' (for want
|> > |> of a better word) so they claim that there is some underlying randomness
|> > |> which is harnessed to create our cognitive power.
|> > |> 
|> > |>    ___          ___     Bruce J. McAdam
|> > |> __/__ \__    __/__ \___ Computer Science Undergraduate
|> > 
|> > I reluctantly concur.  As I said before, (stimulating much discussion),
|> > a random robot is still a robot.
|> > 
|> > Jim Glass
|> > 
|> 
|> two problems with your arguments 
|> 
|> 1 determinism is not a property of reality that we can have knowledge of.
|>   simply understood, if any one has been in a philo course: causation can 
|>  not even be something we can believe in.
|> 
|> 2 random robots???  random what -- i know of no digital electronics 
|> capable of ture randomness... just complex looking output -- even the 
|> energy their made out of {matter and field} is describable with stats:   
|> .:   not random
|> 
|> p.s. deterministic chaos is only a name given to a function with an extremly 
|> long period which looks chaotic if your focused on the present and near future
|> or past. 
|>  
|>    devious

Want a random robot?  Simplicity itself.  Design a robot whose behavior depends
upon a cosmic ray sensor.  Don't like that? Design one whose behavior depends on
the brownian motion of the air around it.

Both robots will be truly random, if "random" has any meaning whatsoever.

Jim Glass

