RE: [-empyre-] free will and determinism

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> Re: Free will - I don't think the time argument holds; in any case, back
> in 1973, a friend of mine who had a Phd in Quantum Electrodynamics -
> Gregert Johnson - and I set out to look at the problem through a
> controlled experiment. I typed 8000 characters 'randomly' - we took the
> central 4000 (to eliminate edge effects), and did a time series analysis
> which took hours on the computers of that era - to see what patterns might
> emerge. Other than a dipthong effect (caused by finger alternations such
> as jkjkjkjkjk etc.) - there was only an absolutely flat response.
>
> For us, this eliminated determinism; the argument for free will was more
> complex, vis-a-vis quantum theory.
>
> Jim, I'm not sure why you are both open to all sorts of approaches to
> neural functions on one hand, and insisting on a strong AI algorithmic
> approach on the other -

i'm not a proponent of strong ai, but i recognize that penrose's arguments
that humans can do things like solve the halting problem are just plain
false. Which doesn't prove that humans can't solve the halting problem, say,
but his proofs are recognized to be simply fallacious, Alan. If he is the
best of critics of strong AI, then there are basically no significant
critics; his arguments are not significant at all.

I enjoyed an old book by Weizenbaum (who wrote Eliza) called Computer Power
and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation. He didn't bother to argue
that there are things computers can't do. He argued that there are things
computers shouldn't be allowed to do. Like anything requiring wise
decisions. This seems to me a more reasonable approach to grapple with the
real issues rather than offering fallacious proofs.

When I did the stir fry texts, I used one of Weizenbaum's texts. I wrote him
to ask permission to use his text. He wrote me back saying sure. That was
pretty cool.

ja