From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose Tue Nov 19 11:10:49 EST 1991
Article 1390 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Nov18.235314.24938@spss.com>
Date: 18 Nov 91 23:53:14 GMT
References: <37995@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov15.231205.7555@milton.u.washington.edu> <38038@shamash.cdc.com>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <38038@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>Nobody can explicitly and deliberately cause a particular neuron to fire,
>but we can and do cause brain activity when we think.  It's the *choice*
>to think (or not) that is the causal root of all action, mental or   
>physical, and this choice is the essence of free will.  From introspection 
>alone, each of us can see that we *do* have the choice to think or not, and 
>having decided to think, to choose the level of effort/focus expended.  

Why should introspection give you any insight at all into how the
mind or brain works?  Many philosophers have described free will as a
complete illusion.  They may be wrong, but introspection doesn't prove that.
You could simply be unaware of the subconscious factors which make you
do what you do.

An intelligent robot might also believe it had free will.  However, this
question had might as well be tabled till we've constructed one.

It may be significant that neural networks have something of the same problem:
they can accomplish a task, without being able to tell you how they did it.
With traditional programs, by contrast, it's possible to examine the algorithm
to see how it does what it does.


