Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Organization: The Armory
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 13:55:21 GMT
Message-ID: <D0E6o9.2xu@armory.com>
References: <3agf03$qi5@mp.cs.niu.edu> <D0CA3E.9yD@armory.com> <3bvlbv$ate@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3bvoee$mg0@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25758 comp.robotics:16024 comp.ai.philosophy:23250

In article <3bvoee$mg0@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>,
Marcus Daniels <marcus@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>>I have tried to be clear throughout this thread that I am use "free will"
>>in a subjective sense.
>
>You have been clear.  That some knowledge is comprimised by denying
>free will does not mean all knowledge is comprimised.  And even if
>this were the case science and engineering could still proceed.
>But this is not the case!  Mathematics lets us weave together pieces
>of objective knowledge, and that is more than enough.
>
>It really sounds to me like you want have free will to be consistent
>with Occam's razor, and there isn't any empirical or practical need
>for free will.  Perhaps social, which is a somewhat depressing
>thought.
---------------------------
Don't mix teleology and sociology. They are unrelated!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

