RE: Amoeba croaks -

From: <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:52:00 -0800

Gilles HENRI, [Gilles.Henri.domain.name.hidden], writes:
> À (At) 21:59 -0800 13/01/99, hal.domain.name.hidden écrivait (wrote) :
> >
> >When I speak of "choosing" to maximize the measure of good outcomes,
> >you can, if you like, think of my activities as the working out of an
> >incredibly complicated deterministic mechanism. But the latter view
> >doesn't have any relevance to me as I make my decisions.
> >
> >Hal
>
> except that you don't really choose your decisions...Another issue is that
> the notion of "good" is not universal but depends on your own subjective
> perception of reality. The best way to be sure to make the good decisions
> is to decide that all what happens is good (see Leibniz).

Sorry, I really do choose my decisions. I consider "human choice" as
"the deterministic workings of brain activities faced with possible
outcomes, based on neural activities which are ultimately grounded in
the laws of physics."

Choice is consistent with determinism. My choices are determined by the
laws of physics. They are still choices. I still agonize over them,
I still weigh the alternatives. I process information; my neural nets
compare alternatives; my neurons weigh their inputs and produce outputs;
my vessicles release neuro-transmitters; my molecules diffuse according
to the laws of entropy. I am all these levels of activity. No single
level invalidates or supercedes the others.

Now, you may have a different definition of choice. You may require
that choice have some kind of random element, that it be inherently
unpredictable. I don't know why you should believe it is better for
choices to be random than to be based on circumstances, but if that is
how you want to use the word, it is your privilege.

Hal
Received on Thu Jan 14 1999 - 09:04:14 PST