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: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:49:14 GMT
Message-ID: <CzEzq8.LxF@armory.com>
References: <MARCUS.94Nov8015942@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu>
 <39o3e8$o8s@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbCyzD83.4sv@netcom.com>
 <39r6lo$c3h@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 216
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25266 comp.robotics:15411 comp.ai.philosophy:22146

In article <39r6lo$c3h@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
wrote:
>In <jqbCyzD83.4sv@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <39o3e8$o8s@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>In <MARCUS.94Nov8015942@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu> marcus@jetsam.cs.pdx.edu
>>>(Marcus Daniels) writes:
>
>>>>Causality is implied by absolute determinism.
>>>>Causality is not denied by the lack of absolute determinism.
>>>>Free will is denied by causality.
>
>>>>Therefore, the *possibility* of Free Will requires denying causality,
>>>>and, furthermore, introducing notions of "action at a distance",
>>>>and "self measuring".
>
>>>Utter nonsense.
>
>>Oh balderdash.  (:-)/2).
>
>Let me first admit that I was not sufficiently clear in my original
>response.  The desciption "utter nonsense" was intended to apply to
>the argument as a whole, rather than to just the conclusion on free
>will.  In my opinion, the conclusion is wrong, but it would be
>inappropriate to call it nonsense.
>
>Take the third premise:  "Free will is denied by causality."  That,
>surely, is nonsense.  Free will is completely compatible with
>causality, provided that the agent having free will is a cause.
>Similarly, the first premise is wrong.  It says "causality is implied
>by absolute determinism." But absolute determinism does not imply
>causality -- it denies causality.  Hume had it right.  We can say
>that A and B are conjoined, but we cannot say that A causes B.  In a
>system with absolute determinism, one cannot get past Hume's
>principle.
--------------------------------------------
Without being entirely caused, so-called "free-will" has no origin and no
construction! It stands apart from the process as it sees it, but this is
only the illusion it creates! It is entirely caused itself!!! Therefore:
I will admit to higher animals and humans having an awareness of existence
which in some manner operates to fabricate the sense of being which is the
point of view from which we exist. They then CAN behave differently than
animals or robots without such a thing. This does in NO way make them a
"cause" unto themselves, as all that they come to think is physically
caused itself, however complexly so! And one can banter quantum mechanics
about all day, but it does not grant awareness an uncaused cause, as it is
as deterministic as tomorrow will be exactly the day it was always going to
be, no matter what the physical rules!
-Steve Walz


>>>All you are really saying, is that if you define "free will" to be
>>>something logically impossible, then in consequence of your
>>>definition, free will is logically impossible.
>
>>So give us a logically possible definition.
>
>It expect that it is not definable.  I'll provide a description.
------------------------
Digressing into mere prating then, and so soon!!???:)
-Steve Walz


>An agent is an information processing system which has a subjective
>interpretation of its world.
>
>An agent has free will, if that agent is a primary cause of its
>information output, according to its own subjective interpretation.
------------------------
You're saying that if a process fabricates an incorrect model of where its
modeling arises, that it has developed a "cause"?? It's not original, it's
merely wrong! That it thinks it is right is only a mistake! That it would
do differently than a being without such is entirely caused, if not as
predictable as anything else at long last!! Merely another tacked-on
process in the long line of improvements, but hardly its own cause!!!
-Steve Walz


>>                                             Keep in mind, though, that
>>the notion of an autonomous self may well be an illusion.
>
>All that is required is a subjectively autonomous self.
-----------------------------------------------
Do you mean that any old dream machine is free-will? And "autonomous"!!
Really! You throw in a supportive word without justification and
haphazardly! Autonomous is precisely what NOTHING is!!!!! All is
inter-caused. Would you concede that a cat then is an autonomous self that
is self-caused and therefore intelligent?? Perhaps, but it's no more correct,
to its own degree, than your fantasy machine is in you in saying such
things are uncaused!!! You would have no content if you are uncaused!!! And
you would be missing some physical cause if a crumb of it were not causal!
That you think you are self-controlling is simply delusional! The delusion
is the heart of why we are here, but it is not uncaused MASTERY of even a
smidgen of what we imagine we are!!!
-Steve Walz
 

>>And what if "free will" really is illusory, and there is *no* coherent
>>definition?
>
>Your question presupposes that "really is" is not illusory.  And
>therein lies a problem.
------------------------------------------
Now you're into circularity, and that is precisely what you use to justify
a self-existent self, but nevertheless, it cannot be entirely
self-existent, and therefore whatever is its starting cause is, in effect,
its only cause, and the rest is effect, delusion, by-product, not product!
-Steve Walz


>> Then of course *any* attempt to define it will be to define it as
>>something logically impossible.  Your criticism here is really rather
>>circular, based upon your *belief* that the term *can* be given a consistent
>>definition, and that therefore any attempt to define it otherwise displays
>>some sort of bad faith.
>
>You have that quite wrong.  I have no belief that the term can be
>give a consistent definition.  It is the nature of natural language
>that the meaning of terms is not definitional.  A term can only be
>given a consistent definition within a formal system, and even there
>we are limited by the Goedel proviso that the formal system cannot
>prove itself to be consistent.
--------------------------------
Give us a break! Goedel played with words when it came to this; you can do
at least a small bit of it: In natural language, (which one), then describe
how awareness arises and holds to an opinion without a first cause!
-Steve Walz 

>>                         But in fact there is no bad faith (or "utter
>>nonsense" or "arbitrar"iness) here, since definitions of free will that
>>require denying causality have a long tradition in the philosophical
>>literature, and thus Marcus is justified in his statement.
>
>I hope I have adequately clarified what my "utter nonsense" referred
>to.  Indeed, there is a long tradition in philosophy, much as you
>have described.  There is also a similar long tradition in
>philosophy, related to the liar paradox, and numerous other
>paradoxes.  This tradition is a source of amusement, and is useful to
>encourage thought.  But one should not take such paradoxes too
>seriously.  It is all a semantic game, and nothing more.  Here is the
>general form of these semantic games:
>
>	Take a word, whose meaning cannot be precisely defined.
>	Assume a precise definition of meaning for that word.
>	Using that precise definition, develop a contradiction.
>
>Of course, all this does is further confirm that the meaning of the
>word was not precisely definable in the first place.  It is an
>exercise which can be instructive.  But one should not take it too
>seriously.
--------------------------------------
It can be admitted that awareness is a paradox, and that perception of the
world is a specious concept. But in using the terms or definitions we are
using what we apply to that which looks separate from us. And from that
apparently non-living matter our children come and our parents go into it.
But if we are to make a distinction as to what can come of this "stuff"
which is not us, between the children of the "body" and of the "mind",
there is simply NO way to state with any assuredness, that something coming
of our "mind" cannot be as aware as our children seem to be! There is
simply no reasonable ground for that contention! Enough "natural language"
for you yet???
-Steve Walz

>>                                                            He may be
>>mistaken, but he certainly not "really saying" what you claim him to be; that
>>is what *you* are saying.
>
>I think he is playing exactly the semantic game I have described.
>
>>>Stop trying to arbitrarily define free will, and instead try to work
>>>out what it is that people are talking about when they claim that
>>>they have free will.
>
>>The only people I know who claim to have it are confused philosophers.
>>When I bring up the subject with others, all I get is "Lighten up, Jim;
>>have another drink".
>
>Perhaps the "others" are smart enough to realize that the argument is
>only a semantic game.
-----------------------------------------------
If that's true, they get mightily annoyed in such a game as you would
believe that to them it was after all, NOT just another "game"!!!!
-Steve Walz

>>>Meaning is usage, and the meaning of "free
>>>will" is to be found in those human actions which are said to exhibit
>>>free will.
>
>>So what are the meanings of "luminous ether", "phlogiston", "immortal soul",
>>"elan vital", "noumenon", "phainesthai", "the meaning of life",
>>"our purpose on Earth", "autonomous self", "family values"?  The mere fact that
>>a term is used doesn't necessarily imply that it has a coherent meaning.
>
>In order to give the meanings of these words, I would have to provide
>many examples of usage.  But good dictionaries exist to do that, so
>it would be pointless for me to attempt to match them.  If these words
>are used in such a way as to convey useful information between people,
>then necessarily they have coherent meanings.  That is quite different
>from the question of whether they have coherent definitions.
>
>>Are you saying that some human actions exhibit free will, but others don't?
>>Or only that certain human actions are *said* to exhibit free will?  I can
>>certainly accede to *ascriptions* of free will without granting "free will"
>>a coherent meaning.
>
>"Ascriptions of free will" seems to be an appropriate phrase.  If one
>can make meaningful ascriptions of free will, then "free will" has a
>coherent meaning.  I do not claim that it has a coherent definition.
--------------------------------------------------
Well thank goodness! If all you're talking is subjectivism, then you have
not brought to this anything anyone involved can use, except for your
phenomenologicalist viewpoint, which is useful. Care to take a stand, or
will you decline to dabble in the "physical world" and what can come of
playing in it!??
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

