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