well, I do not mean to give my opinion on the topic. It would be lengthy,
yet would not add much to it
instead, have a look into the book "dynamic patterns", written by JAS Kelso
it is a description of how he (and many other researches) is trying to build
up a theory accounting for human behaviour based on the theory of nonlinear
dynamical systems and pattern formation (more concretely,
synergetics -Hermann Haken-).
or the "emperor's mind", by Roger Penrose, but I agree more with the former
P.S.-u might skip this- if u know a bit about such theories, you shall learn
that probability does not uniquely belong to quantum domain (meaning that it
is necessary to introduce them to give a satisfactory description of the
phenomena), but rather, appear at a macroscopic level (Think about what you
do, when u have to choose between to posible responses, but u cannot tell,
in advance, which is best. You would then, pick up one randomly. It applies
also to natural phenomena of unanimated elements) Still, the laws of the
Universe might be entirely deterministic (but show complex, chaotic
Hence, it is very hard to deny the existence of free will, or freedom
"Jonan" <ivan at redutta.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ckg98g$hhp$1 at domitilla.aioe.org...
> While I agree on statement for un-deterministic behaviour of nature, I
> think that all arguments are correct.
>> > Well, let's consider the physical universe rather than the mind. It is
> > controlled to a large degree by physical laws, so it certainly isn't a
> > "hodge-podge of meaningless and unpredictable events." But at the same
> > time, there is a uncertainty (unpredictability) component that prevents
> > from operating in a totally deterministic fashion.
>> Nature doesn't follow any rules, for sure - all rules and natural laws
> entirely in our minds - it's our way for dealing with nature's complexity.
> Actually rules follow the nature, because science in all it's aspects is
> some model of nature and laws are created to match to greatest possible
> degree natural events.
>> > "Free will" is an oxymoron. You either believe in "free" in which case
> > the universe is a nihilistic hodge-podge of meaningless and
> > unpredictable events, or you believe in "will", in which case something
> > exists (physical laws, biases, stimuli, etc.) which provide it a push
> > (will).
>> Is the world logical extension of fixed number of axioms? I don't think
> So why trying to put each event in only two extreme categories - (a)
> conforming to no axioms, i.e. the ulitmate goal of entropy, or (b)
> conforming to some existent axioms - the existing physical laws. Why don't
> consider the "free will" just another axiom in our world - a new dimension
> of measuring events?
>> Btw - each theory in order to be consistent should not have a
> between any two conlcusions. Do you think that our - especially the human
> world - is a set of axioms producing consistent theory? I don't. So doing
> science to me is mainly finding the most appropriate model of existing
> events, in specific area, to suit specific purpose. Probably this
> is a kinda hard, when dealing with AI.