Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!ddsw1!redstone.interpath.net!hilbert.dnai.com!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Organization: The Armory
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 03:23:41 GMT
Message-ID: <CzyK3J.2x6@armory.com>
References: <3agf03$qi5@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1994Nov24.235749.18364@threetek.dialix.oz.au> <3b92d9$opb@net.auckland.ac.nz> <3b9dpa$s3m@net.auckland.ac.nz>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 64
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25529 comp.robotics:15722 comp.ai.philosophy:22716

In article <3b9dpa$s3m@net.auckland.ac.nz>,
Jonathan Warwick  Histed <jhis01@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> wrote:
>dnor01@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (David Hikaru  Norman) writes:
>[ roulette wheel stuff deleted ]
>>I suppose that I should be able to provide references to back up the
>>things I post, but at present I can't remember the title or author of
>>the book I read this in. 
>
>Well, "The Newtonian Casino" by Thomas Bass (also published in the US as
>"The Eudaemonic Pie") is a good start.
>
>>Suffice to say that it involved a keyboard built into a shoe that
>>communicated with a computer somewhere else. The system worked by 
>>pressing a key every time the ball went past a reference mark, from 
>>which the software would figure out the likely destination of the ball 
>>and provide feedback. The people involved in this were found out but not 
>>prosecuted because there wasn't a specific law against this practice 
>>at the time. And it worked. They made tidy sums out of it.
>
>Actually, they gave up because of problems with the electronics. Note:
>the ELECTRONICS - not the physics. They sold the equipment to some people
>who may have made money out of it.
>
>>Anyway, the point is that with a bit more information, a lot of the 
>>randomness went out of the situation, with a corresponding reduction in 
>>the amount of spontaneous, free-will-like behaviour attributable to the 
>>gamblers.
>
>I recall one excellent part of the book. The group thought they'd been
>caught when a croupier said "I know what you're doing". He then went
>on to say that he could also determine which number would come out, and
>then showed the group (and other astonsihed patrons) that he could routinely
>hit a certain number when throwing the ball.
>
>>>However, I put my chips on the square that says there will ALWAYS
>>>be events that are NOT predictable.
>>G:odel would agree. But ultimately, what fraction of all possible events 
>>will be intractably unpredictable? It may be a vanishingly small 
>>quantity...
>
>Actually, it's infinite. :-)
>
>Jonathan W Histed 
>jhis01@cs.auckland.ac.nz 
-----------------------------------------
Well, now that this obvious ripost has been thrust, one would think that
they have gotten somewhere or proved something. Neither one of you have, in
that determinism does not rely on either possible or impossible
predictability at all!!! It simply relies on the fact that tomorrow, what
will happen will be, for us, one and only one outcome and that it will be a
specific outcome to the extent of our ability to describe it!! "Free-will"
does NOT arise from physics and uncertainty anyway. It arises as a
sentiment in the mind, a process of stubborn belief that one controls
oneself, despite a complete lack of proof of that assertion!!! "Free-will"
is not any more true than insisting that you're not here! It is only a
poorly formed opinion asserted about why the body does things, a claiming
credit for things no one actually thought out and decided! This is
important to AI because those who would deny the potential for the
construction and programming of devices who would be every bit as much
sentient, aware and conscious as are we, when we cannot even prove that
WE're sentient, aware and conscious, let alone that the yutz next to us
is!!!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

