Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!festival!jeff
From: jeff@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
Subject: Re: Zeleny on predictability
References: <3ul3uc$u2t@saba.info.ucla.edu> <JASPERT.95Jul27130345@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <JASPERT.95Jul31195234@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3vk1ig$fmf@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <DD3sGG.Gv1@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 16:29:03 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32406 comp.ai.philosophy:31537 sci.logic:13868 sci.cognitive:8996

axs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:

>(MZ)
>> > ... can well be opaque ....
>> > in so far as they are devoid of cognitive import.  The rule of thumb
>> > is: whatever I can and should be held responsible for, is eo ipso
>> > introspectively accessible.

>This sounds totally arbitrary to me, as if you have chosen some
>subset of introspective reports that you are going to label reliable
>and others not, and I cannot see any basis for the distinction.

>As for the "eo ipso" you seem to be arbitrarily linking things that
>have nothing to do with one another (responsibility and
>introspection) except perhaps in the framework of a theological
>theory of freedom of the will, as Jasper says.

Why do you call it theological?

-- jeff
