Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!albanycs!crdgw1!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!epistemi!edai!cam
From: cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Keywords: Behaviorism, materialism, dogma, science
Message-ID: <421@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Jun 89 00:18:34 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <533@orawest.UUCP> <2586@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> <386@edai.ed.ac.uk> <149@unix.SRI.COM>
Reply-To: cam@edai (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Lines: 37

In article <149@unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips2.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>> Chris Malcolm
>
>>>It seems to me that the crucial
>>>issue is not whether or not a particular action is physically determined or
>>>not, but rather whether or not the agent can be said to have "controlled"
>>>the action, i.e. whether the cause of the action arose from the beliefs
>>>and desires of the actor, or from unavoidable environmental constraints.
>
>>But here you are impaled on the dualist's dilemma: IF the mind is a
>>function of the brain (mind-states correspond to brain-states), then
>>since the brain, as a machine, is causally determined (brain-state n+1
>>can be deduced from brain-state n plus sense-data), it follows that
>>mind-states are causally determined by physical events, and are just
>>another (perhaps more convenient) way of describing them.
>
>    Lots of "ifs" there. First, and least important, is that the brain
>    isn't causally determined because of QM + Chaos theory (either one
>    in themselves is not sufficient): Brain state n+1 is provably not
>    "determined" by brain state n plus sense data. Also notice you
>    neglected to mention "output" or "control data".
>

You'll be surprised that I very largely agree with nearly all that you
say, not just the above. I was articulating an argument here which I
expected my respondent to largely agree with, in order to provoke a
particular disagreement (failed again :-); no implication that I agreed
with it myself. Socrates was much too smart to try such a such a stunt
on an email net!  Arguments get much too complicated if you restrict
yourself to having to believe everything you say :-)

But what's QM? And why is Chaos in itself insufficient to carry your
point? 
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK