Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2005 sci.philosophy.tech:663 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mit-amt!bc From: bc@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (bill coderre) Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: How to dispose of the free will issue (long) Keywords: free will architecture terminology Message-ID: <2729@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> Date: 8 Jul 88 19:53:21 GMT References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <5384@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Reply-To: bc@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (bill coderre) Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA Lines: 22 In article <5384@sdcrdcf.UUCP> markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) writes: >In article <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton,E26 SB x206E,,2295119) writes: >>In article <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >>>Whether or not we have free will, we should behave as if we do, >>>because if we don't, it doesn't matter. >>If that is true -- if it doesn't matter -- then we will do just as well >>to behave as if we do not have free will. >Not so, believing in free will is a no lose situation; while >believing that you don't have free is a no win situation. Whereas arguing about free will is a no-win situation. Arguing about free will is also certainly not AI. Thank you for your consideration. mr bc