Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!btnet!uunet!in1.uu.net!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Zeleny on predictability (was FIRST order?)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <DCKDAu.8uq@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3v897g$13fv@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 04:47:18 GMT
Lines: 56
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32023 comp.ai.philosophy:31106 sci.logic:13330 sci.cognitive:8713


}==========Scott Inglett, 7/27/95==========
}
}In article <3v6m0p$t1t@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>, 
}A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:
}|> 
}|> I have been teaching philosophy since about 1962 and in 
}philosophy
}|> of mind courses it is an attitude that is very often expressed by
}|> students who, for example, are not merely concerned to find out
}|> WHETHER the world is totally deterministic or not, but very 
}keen to
}|> establish THAT it cannot be because they don't like the idea of
}|> being totally predictable in principle.
}|> 
}|> (That's but one of many questions on which I have to teach 
}students
}|> that they should be aiming to find out what the answer to a 
}question
}|> is not trying to establish that their preferred answer is right.)
}|> 
}|> Various more or less strong versions of this distaste have 
}cropped
}|> up over the years in philosophical literature in discussions of
}|> freedom, and I have even found it in otherwise highly intelligent
}|> colleagues, none of whom has ever been able to get me to 
}understand
}|> why they care so much about it.
}
Maybe the following will help:

The concept of "free will" (i.e., non-determinism) is a foundation stone in
our culture and it, along with the concept of "personal responsibility" is the
basis of much of our criminal and civil law.  If all our acts are determined
in the strong sense, then how can we be held accountable for anything.

Today, this whole notion is under attack and the consequences are only
beginning to be felt.  Consider the woman who bought a cup of coffee at
McDonald's, put it between her legs and subsequently burned herself badly.  A
jury awarded her $15 Million on the basis of the argument that McDonald's did
not tell her the coffee was very hot, so it was their fault she was
burned....i.e., the deterministic cause of her burn was the failure of
McDonald's, and it was not her responsibility to take proper precautions (she
did not set the coffee between her legs as an act of free will).

Or, two kids in California can claim that the reason they wasted their parents
was because they feared drastic reprisals if they didn't.  Thus, it was their
parents fault because the kids behaviour was fully determined by the treatment
they received from their parents.  Furthermore, because of the environment
they lived in, their act was fore-ordained, they could not have chosen another
path.  That a sufficient number of the Jury accepted this argument to result
in a mistrial (hung jury), should cause us all to be greatly alarmed regarding
the future of our civilization.  But, of course, one can argue that, if we are
going to "go down the tubes," this is fully determined as well, so why worry
about it....right!

