Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nb.rockwell.com!mrbig!glass
From: glass@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim Glass)
Subject: Re: Freedom = Determinism = Random (The heck it does)
Message-ID: <1996Feb14.161059.1764@nb.rockwell.com>
Sender: glass@mrbig (Jim Glass)
Organization: Rockwell Info Sys
References: <4ean0d$q64@news.cc.ucf.edu> <4ectun$lkq@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4edl00$d1o@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> <DMIKtB.BAB.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:10:59 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:171191 comp.ai:37031 comp.ai.philosophy:37758 sci.philosophy.meta:24702

In article <DMIKtB.BAB.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, bjm@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Bruce McAdam) writes:
|> In article <4edl00$d1o@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, icarcar@uoguelph.ca (Iskander Carcar) writes:
|> > In my opinion, I don't believe randomness is _necessary_ for choice.  I can
|> > very well make a decision which has nothing random about it, which is 
|> > based on clear (non-random) reasons.
|> > 
|> > I think that it is a myth that choice needs to be _random_ to allow us free 
|> > will.  In fact, I believe the opposite to be true.  I believe we exercise
|> > free will, not by making random choice, but by making determined decisions.
|> > 
|> > I see no paradox between determinism and a free choice, because I believe 
|> > our decisions are determined, determined by us.
|> 
|> When you say that 'you' are making a free and rational decision, you must 
|> be proposing some teleological force which moves your body to rationality.
|> 
|> I do not believe that randomness is necessary for choice (or that randomness
|> exists, but that's another thread) or that we make decisions for 'clear reasons'.
|> I think that we are deterministic automata.
|> 
|> Many people don't like my view and don't like the idea of a 'soul' (for want
|> of a better word) so they claim that there is some underlying randomness
|> which is harnessed to create our cognitive power.
|> 
|> -- 
|>    ___          ___     Bruce J. McAdam
|> __/__ \__    __/__ \___ Computer Science Undergraduate
|> _____|_| \__/_____| |__ The University of Edinburgh
|>   \____| |_____| |_/    bjm@dcs.ed.ac.uk
|>      \___/  \___/       http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~bjm/

I reluctantly concur.  As I said before, (stimulating much discussion),
a random robot is still a robot.

And when someone asserts that they posess free will, I translate that into:

"My outputs are not functions of my inputs."

"Very well, then; what ARE your outputs functions of?"

This is my simple-minded way of saying, "You must be proposing some teleological
force which moves your body to rationality".  Eh, cobber?

Jim Glass

