bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (06/13/88)
I really do not want to further define Objectivist positions on comp.ai. I have also seen several suggestions that we move the free will discussion elsewhere. Anyone object to moving it to sci.philosophy.tech? In article <463@aiva.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > ]In terms of the actual process, what happens is this: various > ]entities provide the material which you base your thinking on > ](and are thus necessary causes for what you think), but an > ]action, not necessitated by other entities, is necessary to > ]direct your thinking. This action, which you cause, is > ]volition. > > Well, how do I cause it? Am I caused to cause it, or does it > just happen out of nothing? Note that it does not amount to > having free will just because some of the causes are inside > my body. (Again, I am not sure what you mean by "other entities".) OK, let's try to eliminate some confusion. When talking about an action that an entity takes, there are two levels of action to consider, the level associated with the action of the entity and the level associated with the processes that are necessary causes for the entity level action. [Note: the following discussion applies only to the case where the action under discussion can be said to be caused by the entity.] Let's consider a relatively uncontroversial example. Say I have a hot stove and a pan over it. At the entity level, the stove heats the pan. At the process level, the molecules in the stove transfer energy to the molecules in the pan. The next question to be asked in this situation is: is heat the same thing as the energy transferred? If the answer is yes then the entity level and the process level are essentially the same thing, the entity level is "reducible" to the process level. If the answer is no, then we have what is called an "emergent" phenomenon. Another characterization of "emergence" is that, while the process level is a necessary cause for the entity level actions, those actions are "emergent" if the process level action is not a sufficient cause. Now, I can actually try to answer your question. At the entity level, the question "how do I cause it" does not really have an answer; like the hot stove, it just does it. However, at the process level, one can look at the mechanisms of consciousness; these constitute the answer to "how". But note that answering this "how" does not answer the question of "emergence". If consciousness is emergent, then the only answer is that "volition" is simply the name for a certain class of actions that a consciousness performs. And being emergent, one could not reduce it to its necessary cause. I should also mention that there is another use of "emergent" floating around, it simply means that properties at the entity level are not present at the process level. The emergent properties of neural networks are of this type.
sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) (06/14/88)
The debate about free will is funny to one who has been travelling
with mystics and sages -- who would respond by saying that freedom
and volition have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. That
volition is conditioned by internal and external necessity and
is in no way free.
The ability to make plans, set goals, to have the range of volition
to do what one wants and to accomplish one's own aims still begs the
question about the source of what one wants.
--
Michael Sierchio @ SMALL SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS
2733 Fulton St / Berkeley / CA / 94705 (415) 845-1755
sierch@well.UUCP {..ucbvax, etc...}!lll-crg!well!sierchbc@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (bill coderre) (06/14/88)
In article <6268@well.UUCP> sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio) writes: >The debate about free will is funny to one who has been travelling >with mystics and sages -- who would respond by saying that freedom >and volition have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.... (this is gonna sound like my just previous article in comp.ai, so you can read that too if you like) Although what free will is and how something gets it are interesting philosophical debates, they are not AI. Might I submit that comp.ai is for the discussion of AI: its programming tricks and techniques, and maybe a smattering of social repercussions and philosophical issues. I have no desire to argue semantics and definitions, especially about slippery topics such as the above. And although the occasional note is interesting (and indeed my colleague Mr Sierchio's is sweet), endless discussions of whether some lump of organic matter (either silicon- or carbon-based) CAN POSSIBLY have "free will" (which only begs the question of where to buy some and what to carry it in) is best confined to a group where the readership is interested in such things. Naturally, I shall not belabour you with endless discussions of neural nets merely because of their interesting modelling of Real(tm) neurons. But if you are interested in AI techniques and their rather interesting approaches to the fundamental problems of intelligence and learning (many of which draw on philosophy and epistemology), please feel free to inquire. I thank you for your kinds attention.....................mr bc