Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Making fires and making minds - the laws of physics prevail
Message-ID: <17465@cup.portal.com>
Date: 22 Apr 89 06:29:49 GMT
References: <10992@bcsaic.UUCP> <16878@cup.portal.com> <2792@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <17374@cup.portal.com> <2826@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 24

In article <2812@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk 
(Gilbert Cockton) writes:

>>>No I wouldn't. I just exercise choice within the bounds of the laws of
>>>physics.
>I got the train to Charing Cross today, rather than Queen Street or
>Partick. I make these choices regularly.

     And my (hypothetical) Artificial Neural Network 'animal' decides to
move North to find food rather than West, East or South.  It makes these
choices regularly.

     The main constraint is the placing of food (food is closer to the
North), but then who cares what caused the placement of the food.  Whether
placed by a human or another ANN, the animal makes its decision based on
its prior experience and the current input.

     I still don't see where any of this makes free will necessary.  Any
action which you can explain by free will I can equally well (or better)
explain by appealing to the incompleteness of self- and other-models.  I'd
love to see a counter-example.


Dan Hankins