🚀 go-pugleaf

Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: Radical Free-will = Exsistentialism
Expires: 
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <1309@lzfme.att.com> <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <528@orawest.UUCP> <1979@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <53788@linus.UUCP> <32091@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Sender: 
Reply-To: brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: UCSF Dept. of Lab Med
Keywords: 

In article <32091@sri-unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips2.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>> Barry Kort >> Brian Colfer
>
>>>	   1) No one can absolutely answer the question of whether 
>>>		  the human mind is completely determined.
>
>>I disagree.  I have a Value System, which I consult when making
>>decisions.  But occasionally I am caught on the razor's edge,
>>with no clear preference between competing alternatives.  Then,
>>like Dorothy at the fork in road, I choose at random (rolling the
>>dice if necessary).
>
>    So your actions are determined by a Value System augmented by a
>    tie-breaking random number generator. That's hardly what most
>    hard-core "libertarians" (ie: FreeWillers) are looking for.
>
>>..Casting lots is a venerable solution to such undetermined choices.
>
>     Just how does a tie-breaking random number generator count as making
>     a radically free choice, one that is authentically one's own, not 
>     determined by the the whims or constraints of another being?
I see Barry Kort and Mike Ellis' position as being the same as Sartre's.  If 
free will exists it always is there and we are therefor ultimately responsible 
for every action.  Even if we choose to randomize our behavior.  The problem
I see is that the Value System (or what ever set of private events) is not
only a cause but is also an effect.  Even in popular culture value systems
are not considered to spring from them selves rather they are the product
of education and experience.

>>..Are you now convinced that at least one living mind is not completely
>>determined?  (Feel free to be reasonable, if you so choose.)

Sartre's position is that you cannot say that you are partially determined 
because then you can shirk off some of the responsibility for your actions.

No one using science proove that an event has occured (free will).  Rather, 
science can only proove that events did not occur that is affirm the
Null Hypothesis.  

If you don't care about scientific methods for reasoning or evidence well 
then you can make any sort of outrageous claims.  

In a non-rigorus analysis I think that there are really only two sources of 
belief: authority, and evidence.  If you primarily derive your beliefs from 
evidence (it is public or private evidence) then why not be systematic.  If 
you primarly derive your beliefs from authorities, Bible, parents, politicians
etc.  without any demonstration of evidence then you are lost.  Free will
is a concept born from authority and not evidence.
=============================================================================
Brian  | UC San Francisco        | E-mail: USENET, Internet, BITNET
Colfer | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  |...!{ucbvax,uunet}!daedalus.ucsf.edu!brianc
       | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu 
       | PH. (415) 476-2325      | BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All things equal, a man with money is freer than a man without..." H. Muller
=============================================================================