davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (01/27/85)
In article <644@wucs.UUCP> pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) >> Sorry, Paul, as I've discussed with you before, rational evaluation is not >> equivalent to free will. Unless, of course, you shirk the meaning of the >> term and simply label rational evaluation as "free will" because you feel >> like it. > >Sorry, Rich, an analysis of the meaning of "free will" shows that it IS >equivalent to the capacity for rational evaluation and action. That this >is not immediately obvious does not make it false. Agency (having free >will) consists in being able to choose among alternatives -- which raises >the question how one chooses, and the answer is by evaluating alternatives. >This in turn involves the use of reason, of having a conception of a norm >and being disposed to adopt a consistent, best justified set of norms. Normally these arguments are way above my head, but this last paragraph really struck me. Two years ago a chess program I wrote played in the US OPEN in L.A. Rapier will always make the same move given the same board position and if the "think" time is exactly the same for any given instance. The chess program "consists in being able to choose among alternatives" "by evaluating alternatives." During each move evaluation there is a routine (appropriately called evaluate) which determines a point score for each possible future move it has time to examine. In essence the evaulate module in conjunction with the search tree algorithms has "a conception of a norm and being disposed to adopt a consistent, best justified set of norms" is how the best move is made. Of course the program can only in primitive ways (at the current time) "adopt" or change its "norms." But such capability is of prime interest to the computer chess/AI community. The claim is made that "'free will' ... is equivalent to the capacity for rational evaluation and action." The people playing my chess program (especially those that have lost to it :-) ) certainly would claim that it has rational evaluation which resulted in the action of their posting a lost chess game to the US Chess Federation. If I am stretching the terms "rational", "free will", "action" e.t.c and am inappropriate I apologize. I was just struck by the similarity of the statements on free will with the exact purposes and intents of the algorithms I so laboured upon imbedded in the chess program. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet