Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Message-ID: <jqbCyzD83.4sv@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3997dq$857@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu> <push-0711941928110001@mind.mit.edu> <MARCUS.94Nov8015942@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu> <39o3e8$o8s@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 03:19:15 GMT
Lines: 65
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25088 comp.robotics:15162 comp.ai.philosophy:21826

In article <39o3e8$o8s@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <MARCUS.94Nov8015942@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu> marcus@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
>
>>Causality is implied by absolute determinism.
>>Causality is not denied by the lack of absolute determinism.
>>Free will is denied by causality.
>
>>Therefore, the *possibility* of Free Will requires denying causality,
>>and, furthermore, introducing notions of "action at a distance",
>>and "self measuring".
>
>Utter nonsense.

Oh balderdash.  (:-)/2).

>All you are really saying, is that if you define "free will" to be
>something logically impossible, then in consequence of your
>definition, free will is logically impossible.

So give us a logically possible definition.  Keep in mind, though, that
the notion of an autonomous self may well be an illusion.

And what if "free will" really is illusory, and there is *no* coherent
definition?  Then of course *any* attempt to define it will be to define it as
something logically impossible.  Your criticism here is really rather
circular, based upon your *belief* that the term *can* be given a consistent
definition, and that therefore any attempt to define it otherwise displays
some sort of bad faith.  But in fact there is no bad faith (or "utter
nonsense" or "arbitrar"iness) here, since definitions of free will that
require denying causality have a long tradition in the philosophical
literature, and thus Marcus is justified in his statement.  He may be
mistaken, but he certainly not "really saying" what you claim him to be; that
is what *you* are saying.

>Stop trying to arbitrarily define free will, and instead try to work
>out what it is that people are talking about when they claim that
>they have free will.

The only people I know who claim to have it are confused philosophers.
When I bring up the subject with others, all I get is "Lighten up, Jim;
have another drink".

>Meaning is usage, and the meaning of "free
>will" is to be found in those human actions which are said to exhibit
>free will.

So what are the meanings of "luminous ether", "phlogiston", "immortal soul",
"elan vital", "noumenon", "phainesthai", "the meaning of life",
"our purpose on Earth", "autonomous self", "family values"?  The mere fact that
a term is used doesn't necessarily imply that it has a coherent meaning.

Are you saying that some human actions exhibit free will, but others don't?
Or only that certain human actions are *said* to exhibit free will?  I can
certainly accede to *ascriptions* of free will without granting "free will"
a coherent meaning.  I once heard someone on LSD claim to have an experience
of "flowing purply".  When I questioned whether that meant anything, another
tripper exclaimed "I know exactly what he means; your problem is that you didn't
drop".   Is that the problem here, that people who "know" what "free will"
means are on a high that I'm missing out on?  Perhaps I *should* light[en] up.




-- 
<J Q B>
