Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!felix!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!smoliar From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness Message-ID: <5404@venera.isi.edu> Date: 2 May 88 14:33:05 GMT References: <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <912@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 23 In article <912@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert >Cockton) writes: >> For AI workers (not AI developers/exploiters who are just raiding the >> programming abstractions), the main problem they should recognise is >> that a rule-based or other mechanical account of cognition and decision >> making is at odds with the doctrine of free will which underpins most >>Western morality. > >What about compatibilism? There are a lot of arguments that free will is >compatible with strong determinism. (The ones I've seen are riddled with >logical errors, but most philosophical arguments I've seen are.) >When I see how a decision I have made is consistent with my personality, >so that someone else could have predicted what I'd do, I don't _feel_ >that this means my choice wasn't free. Here, here! Cockton's statement is the sort of doctrinaire proclamation which is guaranteed to muddy the waters of any possible dialogue between those who practice AI and those who practice the study of philosophy. He should either prepare a brief substantiation or relegate it to the cellar of outrageous vacuities crafted solely to attract attention!