Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Summary: yes it is relevant
Message-ID: <305@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 88 16:54:44 GMT
References: <8805151907.AA01702@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <445@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1226@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 21
Xref: utzoo comp.ai:1915 talk.philosophy.misc:1083

In article <1226@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> In article <205@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
> >The Objectivist version of free will asserts that there are (for
> >a normally functioning human being) no sufficient causes for what
> >he thinks.  There are, however, necessary causes for it.
> Has this any bearing on the ability of a machine to simulate human
> decision making?  It appears so, but I'd be interested in how you think it
> can be extended to yes/no/don't know about the "pure" AI endeavour.

If you mean by "pure AI endeavour" the creation of artificial
consciousness, then definitely the question of free will &
determinism is relevant.

The canonical argument against artificial consciousness goes
something like: humans have free will, and free will is essential
to human consciousness.  Machines, being deterministic, do not
have free will; therefore, they can't have a human-like
consciousness.

Now, should free will be possible in a deterministic entity this
argument goes poof.