On Monday, March 4, 2013 7:23:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote: 
>
> > On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 
> >>> So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are 
> >>> >intentionally saying it? 
> >> "Intentional", as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is 
> >> more or less equivalent to "mental" or "conscious". You seem to take 
> >> it as an a priori fact that something that is either deterministic or 
> >> random cannot have intentionality. This seems to me obviously wrong. 
> > 
> > Me too.  Intentionality just consists in having a hierarchy of goals   
> > which drive actions.  To say something is done intentionally just   
> > means it is done pursuant to some goal.  When the Mars rover steers   
> > around rock it does so intentionally in order to reach some place   
> > beyond which is a higher level goal. 
>
> I agree too, but of course some non-computationalist will argue that   
> "intention" needs consciousness (which i think is wrong), 


Individually, one might carry out an intention without being personally 
conscious of it, but ontologically, a world without consciousness can have 
no intention - why would it? What would it mean for something to be 
intentional or unintentional in a universe which contains no possibility of 
conscious participation?

and that   
> goal driven algorithm can be non conscious (which i think is possible). 
>

An algorithm can be non conscious (it always is IMO), but an algorithm has 
no intention to pursue a goal. What drives an algorithm is not a goal but 
the mechanics of whatever it is executed on. Whether it is the force of 
water dripping on a scale, or current winding through a circuit, pendulum 
swinging, etc - that sensory-motor expectation is the only intention. 
Everything that we place in the line of that intention - water wheels, 
dominoes, etc, is unintentional to the process completing. I can make a 
Rube Goldberg machine which drops a mallet on a bunny's head at the end, 
but that doesn't mean that the machine intentionally hurts animals. This is 
what it seems like you don't see or are denying. Just because an algorithm 
is designed purposefully doesn't mean that purpose is carried into the 
algorithm.



> I am a bit astonished that some people still believe that   
> indeterminacy can help for free will. On the contrary, deterministic   
> free will make sense, because free will comes from a lack of self- 
> determinacy, 


Why do you conceive of free will as emerging from an absence? That's like 
saying that white comes from not-black. Why would something develop free 
will just because it has a lack of self-determinacy? Jellyfish drift.

Craig
 

> implying hesitation in front of different path, and self- 
> indeterminacy follows logically from determinism and self-reference. 
>
> First person indeterminacy can be used easily to convince oneself that   
> indeterminacy cannot help for free will. Iterating a self-duplication   
> can't provide free-will. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to