From: Peter Voss (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 13:24:25 MDT
There is an important sense of 'freewill' that is both valid & useful.
Valid, by being compatible with finite state machines, and useful for
identifying (moral) responsibility. See:
Comment on last sentence below: 'Perceive' perhaps, but we can certainly
conceptualize our 'lack' of freewill.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
Of James Rogers
On 7/4/02 6:59 AM, "James Higgins" <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 01:20 AM 7/4/2002 -0400, Gordon Worley wrote:
>> Besides, I assert there's no such thing as free will and it's just an
>> illusion of the interpreter, but that's another thread.
> Of course there is free will, at least on the individual level.
Gordon is correct. IF you assume the mind can be run on finite state
machinery (something one generally assumes in AI research), you can't have
free will. Furthermore, in such a case it is mathematically impossible for
you to even perceive that you don't have free will ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT