NICK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Nick Papadakis) (06/04/88)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 16:15 EDT From: Bruce E. Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com> Subject: denial presupposes free will To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu cc: bn@cch.bbn.com DH> AIList Digest 7.13 DH> From: oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!dharvey@tis.llnl.gov (David DH> Harvey) DH> Subject: Re: More Free Will DH> While it is rather disturbing (to me at least) that we may not be DH> responsible for our choices, it is even more disturbing that by our DH> choices we are destroying the world. For heaven's sake, Reagan and DH> friends for years banned a Canadian film on Acid Rain because it was DH> political propaganda. Never mind the fact that we are denuding forests DH> at an alarming rate. You ought to read Gregory Bateson on the inherently adverse effects of human purposive behavior. He develops the theme in several of the papers and lectures reprinted in _Steps to an Ecology of Mind_, especially in the last section on social and ecological issues. DH> . . . if we with our free will (you said it, DH> not me) aren't doing such a great job it is time to consider other DH> courses of action. By considering them, we are NOT adopting them as DH> some religious dogma, but intelligently using them to see what will DH> happen. Awfully hard to deny the existence of free will without using language that presupposes its existence. Consider your use of "consider," "adopt," "intelligently using," and "see what will happen." This sounds like purposive behavior, aka free will. If you can find a way to make these claims without presupposing what you're denying, you'll be on better footing. Bruce Nevin bn@cch.bbn.com <usual_disclaimer>