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!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <jqbDLsss6.6qE@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbDLr3LD.CG4@netcom.com> <4ean0d$q64@news.cc.ucf.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:04:54 GMT
Lines: 51
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:167193 comp.ai:36370 comp.ai.philosophy:37056 sci.philosophy.meta:23701

In article <4ean0d$q64@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>In article <jqbDLr3LD.CG4@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>> In article <4doa2n$1re@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
>> Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>> >gregs@umich.edu (Gregory T Stevens) writes:
>
>> >>RANDOMNESS is not the same as FREE CHOICE ...
> 
>> >True.  Randomness is not sufficient for free choice, but
>> >it is necessary for choice.
>
>> So many fallacies .... If I always look both ways before crossing the street,
>> that is not proof that I have no freedom to blithely step into traffic.
>> Freedom, predictability, and determinism are not interchangable.  
>
>This is irrelevant.  You are bringing in external contingencies.

I point out that your logic is obviously fallacious (free choice does *not*
necessarily imply unpredictability) and you call it, without explanation,
"irrelevant".  Feh.

>
>> >Take a bunch of human clones, raise them as identically as
>> >you can and ask them to select a door.  Since they have
>> >free choice they will choose the lady or the tiger seemingly
>> >at random.
> 
>> "Since they have free choice" assumes the conclusion. 
>
>Of course.  I am making an argument after the style of mathematics.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between argument and assertion.
It isn't a matter of style, bub.

>If A is true (free will), then B follows (random behavior to an
>external observer).  This is what necessary means.  If A is true,
>then B must necessarily be true.  if B were then A could not
>be true without a contradiction.
>
>The lady or the tiger reference was a poor attempt at a literary 
>allusion.  I thought it might spice up the net dialog.
>
>Tom Clarke
>
>Newsgroup line edited to take out symbolic logic.

Not a bad idea, since you've already removed it from the content.
-- 
<J Q B>

