Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2009 sci.philosophy.tech:670
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdcrdcf!markb
From: markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of the free will issue (long)
Keywords: free will architecture terminology
Message-ID: <5384@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jul 88 16:18:37 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar)
Organization: Unisys - System Development Group, Santa Monica
Lines: 17

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.
In the first case either your right or it doesn't matter, in the second
case either your wrong or it doesn't matter.  Game theory (assuming
you put more value on being right then wrong (if it doesn't matter
there are no values anyway)) says the believing and acting like you
have free will is the way that has the most expected return.

Mark Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb
markb@rdcf.sm.unisys.com