MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (05/01/88)
Yamauchi, Cockton, and others on AILIST have been discussing freedom of will as though no AI researchers have discussed it seriously. May I ask you to read pages 30.2, 30.6 and 30.7 of The Society of Mind. I claim to have a good explanation of the free-will phenomenon. I agree with Gilbert Cockton that it is not the lack of answers that should be criticised, but the contemporary ignorance of the subject. (As for why my own answer evaded philosophers for millenia, My hypothesis is that philosophers have not been very insightful about actual psychological phenomena - which is why it had to wait for Freud - or, perhaps, Poincare - to produce convincing discussions about the importance of unconscious thinking.) Cockton also sagely points out that a rule-based or other mechanical account of cognition and decision making is at odds with the doctrine of free will which underpins most Western morality. ... Scientists who seek moral, ethical, epistemological or methodological vacuums are only marginalising themselves into positions where social forces will rightly constrain their work. I only disagree with Cockton's insertion of "rightly". Like E.O.Wilson, I prefer follow ideas even where they lead to potentially unpopular conclusions. Indeed, I feel it is only proper for those social forces to try to constrain my work. When the researchers feel constrained to censor their own work, then everyone may end up the poorer in the end. I'm not even sure this is a disagreement. A closer look might show that this is what Cockton is actually saying, too.
NICK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Nick Papadakis) (05/27/88)
Date: Mon, 16 May 88 14:26 EDT From: Barry W. Kort <bwk@mitre-bedford.arpa> Organization: Moribund Corporation, Seventh Chapter, DE Subject: Re: AIList V6 #86 - Philosophy References: <3200016@uiucdcsm>, <523@wsccs.UUCP>, <11191@sunybcs.UUCP> Sender: ailist-request@ai.ai.mit.edu To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu David Sher has injected some new grist into the discussion of "responsibility" for machines and intelligent systems. I tend to delegate responsibility to machines known as "feedback control systems". I entrust them to maintain the temperature of my house, oven, and hot water. I entrust them to maintain my highway speed (cruise control). When these systems malfunction, things can go awry in a big way. I think we would have no trouble saying that such feedback control systems "fail", and their failure is the cause of undesirable consequences. The only interesting issue is our reaction. I say fix them (or improve their reliability) and get on with it. Blame and punishment are pointless. If a system is unable to respond, doesn't it make more sense to restore its ability than to merely label it "irresponsible"? --Barry Kort
NICK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Nick Papadakis) (06/02/88)
Date: Sun, 15 May 88 23:59 EDT From: Richard A. O'Keefe <quintus!ok@sun.com> Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA Subject: Re: AIList V6 #86 - Philosophy References: <1579@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, <3200016@uiucdcsm>, <523@wsccs.UUCP> Sender: ailist-request@ai.ai.mit.edu To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu In article <523@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > lives. Even a casual perusal of the studies of identical twins > separated at birth will produce an uncanny amount of similarities, and > this also includes IQ levels, even when the social environments are > radically different. ONLY a casual perusal of the studies of separated twins will have this effect. There is a selection effect: only those twins are studied who are sufficiently far from separation to be located! A lot of these so-called "separated" twins have lived in the same towns, gone to the same schools, ...