Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!oddjob!mimsy!eneevax!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self Awareness
Message-ID: <323@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jun 88 17:20:50 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <558@wsccs.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 25

In article <558@wsccs.UUCP>, rargyle@wsccs.UUCP (Bob Argyle) writes:
> We genetically are programmed to protect that child (it may be a
> relative...);

Please avoid expressing your opinions as fact.  There is
insufficient evidence that we are genetically programmed for ANY
adult behavior to allow that proposition to be used as if it were
an uncontestable fact.  (Keep in mind that this does NOT mean
that we are not structured to have certain capabilities, nor does
it deny phenomena like first-time learning.)

> IF we get some data on what 'free will' actually is out of AI, then let
> us discuss what it means.  It seems we either have free will or we
> don't; finding out seems indicated after is it 3000 years of talk.vague.

I hate to call you philosophically naive, but this remark seems
to indicate that this is so.  The real question debated by
philosophers is not "do we have free will", but "what does `free
will' mean".  The question is not one of data, but rather of
interpretation.  Generally speaking, once the latter question is
answered to a philosopher's satisfaction, the answer to the
former question is obvious.

Given this, one can see that it is not possible to test the
hypothesis with AI.