Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Randomness and free will
Message-ID: <jqbDMoHp9.5Ho@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4f6nd7$925@panix3.panix.com> <4f7ont$ed8@news.cc.ucf.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:48:45 GMT
Lines: 33
Sender: jqb@netcom15.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:170859 comp.ai:36967 comp.ai.philosophy:37665 sci.philosophy.meta:24628

In article <4f7ont$ed8@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>No one seems to really understand what I am saying.  

Perhaps you are being inconsistent.  What's *your* explanation for this
apparent mass lack of understanding?

>Why the big objection to the possible significant of quantum pheonomena?

Why misrepresent your own position and the nature of the debate?  The issue is
the necessity of randomness to free will, and the confusion between
randomness, unpredictability, determinism, and free will.

>Physicists have gotten used to the weird things that happen, why
>not cognitive science?  Why is chaos OK and QM not?

Because of Occam.  QM and chaos are both introduced to explain observations.
They shouldn't be introduced before the observations *require* them.

>If chaos, true chaos - exponential multiplication of uncertainty
>in initial conditions - is necesary, than digital hardware is not
>going to cut it either.

Given the quantum nature of, um, nature, I don't see why not.  But in any
case, you would still need to show that chaos is *necessary* to whatever it is
we are trying to achieve (intelligence?  human-like behavior?  free will?  I
dunno, the ground shifts a lot here).



-- 
<J Q B>

