Article <uv3qaq$beph$1@solani.org>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<uv3qaq$beph$1@solani.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:28:11 -0500
Organization: University of Ediacara
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <uv3qaq$beph$1@solani.org>
References: <t6801jdmgcgr0fdvm4e9qpp1q18tsodheo@4ax.com>
 <uupqff$68rm$2@solani.org> <phu11jpedm7que73fh9f4hr6ho837j6roj@4ax.com>
 <uusjf8$7l2g$3@solani.org> <ocd51jpqnqhdc7t7g7i04ub9hr3phbn98c@4ax.com>
 <uuuk95$8l91$1@solani.org> <fat91jtecqk56ldqouhgnp7okervabrf1u@4ax.com>
 <uv3jon$ba50$1@solani.org> <cvma1jdffjhfod2sgp3u1mpqj3u16quhq9@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="81905"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ky2/a72qYi5cbJyN3zgpGb/pd9U=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <cvma1jdffjhfod2sgp3u1mpqj3u16quhq9@4ax.com>
Bytes: 13390
Lines: 237

On 2024-04-09 10:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:36:07 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-04-09 3:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:14:12 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-07 10:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:48:09 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-04-06 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:29:20 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-05 11:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There was quite an interesting discussion a few weeks ago on Free Will
>>>>>>>>> vs Determinism but it died a death, at least in part due to the
>>>>>>>>> departure of some contributors to the Land Beyond GG. I'd like to take
>>>>>>>>> up some of the issues again if anyone is interested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One point made by Hemidactylus that didn't get developed any further
>>>>>>>>> was the way that we sometimes give a lot of time and effort into
>>>>>>>>> making a decision - he gave the example of buying a car. It's also
>>>>>>>>> common for someone to want to "sleep it on it" before making a
>>>>>>>>> decision where the decision is important but it is not clear what
>>>>>>>>> decision is best. If a decision is essentially predetermined then what
>>>>>>>>> is the point of that time and effort or sleeping on it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you not see that this argument depends on the belief that there was
>>>>>>>> an *option* to make the decision earlier under different conditions
>>>>>>>> (lack of 'thinking it over' and/or 'sleeping on it'). IOW that free will
>>>>>>>> exists. You are 'begging the question'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's actually the complete opposite, I am starting with the assumption
>>>>>>> that there is no free will and asking what then is the point in
>>>>>>> deliberating over the various options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, right there. My claim is that 'deliberating over the options' is
>>>>>> what you are determined by the circumstances to do and is part of the
>>>>>> circumstances that determines what you follow it up with. Assuming that
>>>>>> there is some "point" beyond this is assuming that free will exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     You seem to be taking things a
>>>>>>> bit further and saying that if determinism exists then there aren't
>>>>>>> any options to begin with but that is just a variation in emphasis, it
>>>>>>> doesn't address the question of why we spend so much time pondering
>>>>>>> those options when they don't even exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's because the "pondering" is part of the determined action.
>>>>>
>>>>> That just takes us full circle back to my original question - what is
>>>>> the point or the value of that pondering if the decision is
>>>>> predetermined?
>>>>
>>>> Why does it have to have a 'point' or 'value'?
>>>
>>> I think I've answered that in what I said below about evolution. There
>>> is an underlying principle of Cost versus Benefit in Natural
>>> Selection; if the benefits from a trait or characteristic outweigh its
>>> cost, then that trait Is likely to be selected for; if the cost
>>> outweighs the benefits, then it will likely be selected against; if
>>> cost and benefit more or less balance out, then it is really down to
>>> chance whether or not the trait well survive. As I said already, I see
>>> considerable cost involved in this pondering in terms of brain
>>> resources, but I don't see any benefits if the decision is determined
>>> by external factors. Can you suggest any benefits that would outweigh
>>> the cost?
> 
During the (present conditions determined) pause conditions change that 
cause (determined) better decisions.

> Apparently not.
> 
>>>
>>>> Pre 'pondering' it is
>>>> just the determined results (one of which is the pondering) of the
>>>> conditions at that time. Post 'pondering' the determined action is the
>>>> result of conditions at *that* time which includes any changes due to
>>>> the 'pondering' among other changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> In evolutionary terms, I can see various disadvantages to that
>>>>> pondering. The brain is the most demanding organ in our body,
>>>>> consuming around 20% of the total energy used. Pondering a decision
>>>>> can often distract us from other important things we should be using
>>>>> our brain for and can indirectly have a very negative affect on our
>>>>> lives. It seems to me that it would make sense to weed out unnecessary
>>>>> demands unless they have a clear evolutionary advantage. I can't see
>>>>> any such evolutionary advantage in pondering being added to a
>>>>> predetermined process.
>>>>
>>>> How does 'free will' avoid this problem?
>>>
>>> First of all, I don't think that is really a relevant question - I'm
>>> not debating this issue to make a case for free will, I'm challenging
>>> the robustness of determinism in its own right. I certainly don't want
>>> to fall into the trap of claiming that I can prove Theory B is right
>>> by identifying shortcomings in Theory A, something for which I have
>>> previously criticised ID, particularly Stephen Meyer. [1]
>>>
>>> Having said that, I don't think it is a big problem for free will as I
>>> can see benefits for pondering in that context. If I have freedom in
>>> making my decisions, then that means I am ultimately responsible for
>>> those decisions and their outcome. It is obviously beneficial for me
>>> to become as good a decision-maker as possible; pondering decisions
>>> and all their foreseeable outcomes can help me get better at it.
>>>
>> Why doesn't that same argument work for the existence of 'pondering' in
>> a deterministic scenario?
> 
> What advantage is there in becoming a good decision maker if you
> aren't making decisions?
>
Are you becoming a better decision maker (non-deterministic) or are 
different conditions determining better 'decisions'?

> 
>>
>>> FWIW, the more I read and debate this subject, the more it reminds me
>>> of the Nature vs Nurture debate, the "bit of both" answer also applies
>>> here.
>>>
>> Yep. It's just the spectre (ha) of the supernatural that seems to
>> inevitably arise when 'free will' is invoked that bothers me.
> 
> What bothers me is when people dismiss things out of hand just because
> they might have even a hint of the supernatural.
>
Hint? Is is supernatural and that bothers me because it invalidates much 
of what we believe we know about the universe.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tied in with that is our ability to change our minds after we have
>>>>>>>>> made a decision - has determinism some convoluted way of working that
>>>>>>>>> predetermines what way we will make a decision but also predetermins
>>>>>>>>> that we will change it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having made a decision plus time (other things happening) have changed
>>>>>>>> the environment, so why not a different decision being determined?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have been redecorating recently. The choice for wallpaper for a
>>>>>>> particular room came down to two papers. My wife (who finally decides
>>>>>>> these things <smile>) picked paper A and we bought it. Two days later,
>>>>>>> she changed her mind and decided she's rather have paper B. We hadn't
>>>>>>> even opened the paper so we were able to take it back to the shop and
>>>>>>> get it swapped. I can't see any change of environment in that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your wife went into suspended animation for two days!? Amazing.
>>>>>> Seriously, do you not think it possible, nay, probable that she
>>>>>> continued to 'ponder' her decision, observed the room in different
>>>>>> lighting conditions, paid heightened consideration to the existing
>>>>>> colours in the room, etc. and that this might have led to her changing
>>>>>> her mind?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========