On 5/6/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei,
I assumed your system is determinisitc from your posts, not your papers. So
I'm still really, genuinely confused by your position. You didn't actually
answer my question (unless I've missed something in all these posts) re how
your system could "have a choice" and yet not be arbitrary at all.
Mike,
Email discussion is a supplement, not a replacement, of literature
reading. If you are really serious about this discussion, you have no
choice but to read much more than you did. For a topic as complicated
and difficult as AGI, one shouldn't expect to resolve all issues by
email.
For example, your following comments show me that you don't share even
the minimum common knowledge and terminology with people studying
decision making. By your definition, "free will" have to remain
magical, since any successful explanation will turn the decision
making process into "deterministic".
As several people have pointed out, you can believe whatever you want,
but to carry out a fruitful discussion, you have to follow the common
convention of communication. Even if you really have revolutionary
ideas, you need to express them in acceptable ways. Otherwise it is
simply a waste of time, both yours and other people's.
I have tried my best in answering your questions.
Pei
Listen, you can define your system any which way you like. Why not do it
simply and directly? A free system can decide at a given point, either of
two or multiple ways, - in my example, to Buy, Sell or Hold. A deterministic
system at that same point, will have only one option. It will have, say, to
decide to Sell. Which is your system? (Philosophers may argue till the end
of time about what is/ isn't compatibilist, incompatibilisit, etc etc but
they won't define "free" and "determined" decisionmaking any differently).
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
