Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Message-ID: <1172@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 17 May 88 08:48:16 GMT
References: <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <912@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <5404@venera.isi.edu> <1115@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5511@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Message-ID: <1172@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 17 May 88 08:48:16 GMT
References: <4134@super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1029@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <912@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <5404@venera.isi.edu> <1115@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <5511@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Lines: 47

In article <5511@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>>	2. determinism => lack of responsibility
>I would argue that its weakest link is on the second line. 

The objection runs
    complex determinism => incomprehensible coherently => must abstract
     => arbitrary prioritisation => responsibility for these choices

and thus transitively, determinism => responsibility, not the lack of it.
I respond with an (unelaborated) attack on the idea of coherent comprehension, 
and replace it with an appeal to intuition.

 complex determinism => rely on insight => accept/reject insight 
      => responsibility for these choices

That is, complexity can be managed by 'know how' and 'know when' without
'knowing what'.  I do not need to be a physiologist to ride a bicycle.
Coherent comprehension is not the Queen of Understanding.

But what are the implications of both these chains of reasoning to the first,
which they so obviously contradict? They imply a contradiction of course, and in
true dialectical fashion, I'm sticking with all of them because they all have a
grain or 100 of truth in them, and the contradictions could be removed by adding
the appropriate contextual contingencies.  For the logically handicapped, it 
should be clear now why a logical contradiction is not the end of the world, 
just an omen! And the omen is, you never addressed my link, you just presented
another, intriguing and, to me, valid one.

My point was that MENTAL determinism and MORAL responsibility are incompatible.
I cite the whole ethos of Western (and Muslim? and??) justice as evidence.  If
AI research has to assume something which undermines fundamental values, it
better have a good answer beyond academic freedom, which would also justify
unrestricted embryo research, forced separation of twins into controlled
upbringings, unrestricted use of pain in learning research, ...

It's a question of which you value most, and where you feel your
responsibilities lie.  AI isn't the first area to go this way.  Say
hello to your big brothers Behaviourism and Sociobiology :-)

>perhaps .. can provide basis for discussion in less flaboyant use of language.
Don't be such a bore :-)  This is how I wrote before I entered the
grey world of science and mathematics, and if it was good enough for
history, philosophy, psychology and sociology at college (the sociologists
did grumble at times!), it's good enough for anything.  No time is to ever be
had by me for the prescriptive barbarism of technical writing guidelines. 

Anyway, if you stripped AI of flamboyant language, there'd be little left :-)