jfred, Fair enough if we limit "choice" to the mystical ingredient which makes some entities selection process mindful. Maybe I can use the word 'selection' for Deep Blue, insects, mice? and me [n]. You can have 'choice' for the good guys. I get frustrated if we can't determine word meaning specifically and accurately, if not precisely.
But before I get tangled up there. I find that an effective way to come up with solutions is to run out to the edges, make sure we have the field covered then work my way in, keeping the fence tight. When we get to hemming and hawing, then we can start getting out the scalpels and microscopes. So I wasn't trying to prove no choice by including plants growing, I was trying to find where your mysticism begins and ends. How many hairs you need before you see a beard.
Of course, that isn't a good analogy, [beards and minds], as it is only a word game. A beard is only lots of individuals, whereas you are saying a mind and choice is something totally different with ingredient X. With beards, we just chuck a word at lots of whiskers and say how about we call such and such a beard?
So we have pinned this bloody Yeti down to somewhere including people and some brands of monkeys [big gorillas and chimps - no wonder Chimp has arrived up there claiming to be able to recite my pal Schrodinger's equation while stirring Heisenberg in]. Just hang on there Chimp, I'll come and round you up in a minute. At least we have escaped the sacrosanct DNA of Homo Sapiens [not that I mean anything untoward by the use of the word Homo]. So we can take a few animals prisoner and ask them about their minds and choices.
So are you saying mice have got ingredient X? How about guinea pigs - I have one here and was talking to her earlier and can start tests immediately? She was definitely manifesting choice. Dandelions beat grass. She complained if I stroked her fur backwards. I don't know whether chimps complain about backward stroking.
I also can see from your answer that you don't claim a light switch effect for X. Just a gradual well, maybe it has and maybe it hasn't. No Turing test for choice? Not an objectively identified ingredient? Just self declared "I have it". Oh, very tenuous!!
Actually, I might have to call in a supporter here, [though I bet he's an opponent, but I'll take the chance]. I know he's human and he gets paid money to study intelligence and stuff in heads. For all I know, "jfred" is some damn computer having a good laugh!! The Deep Blue of linguistic skill. Tim might know what comprises the "Tricky Process". But I bet he disavows knowing since you seem to be keeping a close eye on who knows what.
Well, I have to agree that until I come up with the mechanism for my Determined Belief system I'm just doing the same as others - backing a hypothesis. Which is okay. If I'm right, I'll do better than people who buy stocks who get voices from Dog telling them what to buy. I'm comfy with untested beliefs, but I try to keep and eye on operating premises. That doesn't make my belief wrong - it just means I won't get any supporters until I come up with the goods pinning it down. Well, they might be supporters, but they would really only be fellow hunters.
Now rushing down to the micro world of ghostly particles. Oh dear, sore backside again, so briefly, do you agree that there is some non- deterministic behaviour in this micro world as well as Sasha and my heads? Anywhere else I might find this sneaky ingredient X? Or have we got the two areas tied down now? Of course since some of those little quarkian fellas are pretty unbiquitous, you might just say that includes everything!! Even plants growing. Oh no. You slipped away like an eel. So free will is in the rocks around us and the air we breathe?? Please don't say so.
Why on earth do you need the little guys to be indeterminate? Is that part of your Dog Choice Theory? Can't they just trundle along like woolly billiard balls and not upset Choice? Maybe you are saying they have the resident X in their fuzz. And it collects in Sasha and better reasoners. Not birds. If you insist, then I suppose we need some little guy tests to see if they behave consistently or irrationally sometimes.
Maurice.
Have to go round up Chimp! |
