Article <v0p8iq$2118n$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v0p8iq$2118n$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:24 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 267
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v0p8iq$2118n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t6801jdmgcgr0fdvm4e9qpp1q18tsodheo@4ax.com>
 <uupqff$68rm$2@solani.org> <phu11jpedm7que73fh9f4hr6ho837j6roj@4ax.com>
 <f790f6aab96a0e329cf60b298d72a07f@www.novabbs.com>
 <6jc51jl5d89t6q2eik34d3a208cc0djncm@4ax.com> <uvshri$2m9n6$1@dont-email.me>
 <i0ac2jhk17boli91n7o7bu3i72c252nl6m@4ax.com> <v0b9f3$2da1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <69lm2jd8t6upgsunjko8195iudot8qirdh@4ax.com> <v0gkut$3pro6$1@dont-email.me>
 <1e7p2jdn17ohqg8gbgb6d5qmo3nuh6iks5@4ax.com> <v0oimr$1rrd2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="85605"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HOMco6Xfmrq14Qbd6nROYZcTxsU=
In-Reply-To: <v0oimr$1rrd2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 16320

On 29/04/2024 18:43, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/26/24 11:57 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:32:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/24 12:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:45:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/24 2:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> rOn Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:36:48 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/7/24 8:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:22:18 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com 
>>>>>>>> (LDagget)
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You missed his point.
>>>>>>>>> Consider writing an algorithm controlling a robot walking down 
>>>>>>>>> a path.
>>>>>>>>> The robot comes to a fork in the road. Does it take the left 
>>>>>>>>> fork or
>>>>>>>>> the right fork?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The robot has no free will. It can, however, process data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The algorithm can have layered complexity. Scan left, scan right,
>>>>>>>>> process data. Simple-minded algorithm scans 1 sec each way, 
>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>> some score of positive and negatives and picks the best. If it's a
>>>>>>>>> tie, it might kick the random number generator into gear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alternatively, it can get into a loop where it keeps scanning left
>>>>>>>>> and right until one "choice" passes a threshold for "better" that
>>>>>>>>> is not just a greater than sign, maybe 10% better or such. From
>>>>>>>>> the outside, this is "pause to think". With a little imagination,
>>>>>>>>> one can add much more complexity and sophistication into how the
>>>>>>>>> robot chooses. It can be dynamically adjusting the thresholds. It
>>>>>>>>> can use it's wifi connection to seek external data. It can find 
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> its wifi signal is poor at the fork in the road so back up to 
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> it was better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Map "go home and sleep on it" to some of that or to variants.
>>>>>>>>> Map it into Don's words. The robot could not "choose" left or
>>>>>>>>> right until its algorithm met the decision threshold, i.e. it
>>>>>>>>> didn't have a legitimate option yet. (hopefully he'll correct
>>>>>>>>> me if I have abused his intent too far)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To an outside observer lacking full knowledge of the algorithm,
>>>>>>>>> it looked like it had a choice but inexplicably hesitated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is *you* who have missed the point. What you have described 
>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>> is an algorithm to process data and arrive at a decision; what I 
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> asking about is why we delay once all the information that is
>>>>>>>> available or likely to be available *has been processed*. Once 
>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>> information has been input in your algorithm there is no reason for
>>>>>>>> the processor to continue analysing unless you add in some sort of
>>>>>>>> rather pointless "just hang about for a while" function; no 
>>>>>>>> matter how
>>>>>>>> many times your algorithm runs with a given set of inputs, it will
>>>>>>>> reach the same decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer to that is simple: Once all information is in, it has 
>>>>>>> *not*
>>>>>>> all been processed. The decider may have thought about price, 
>>>>>>> quality,
>>>>>>> ease of cleaning, subjective appreciation of pattern (for both 
>>>>>>> self and
>>>>>>> one or two others), and availability, but there are undoubtedly
>>>>>>> tradeoffs midst all that data that cannot be expressed in 
>>>>>>> six-variable
>>>>>>> differential equation, much less in something that you could 
>>>>>>> decide by
>>>>>>> reasoning. Furthermore, there are innumerable other factors that the
>>>>>>> decider probably did not consider on the first pass (how does it 
>>>>>>> look in
>>>>>>> various other lightings? What, if anything, would it imply about our
>>>>>>> social status? Is it going to remind me of Aunt Agatha's horrible
>>>>>>> kitchen?) All of that processing takes time,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which goes back to the question I have already asked here about the
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you have said above highlights that there is significant cost
>>>>>> involved in this pondering in terms of brain resources. Can you
>>>>>> identify any benefits that would outweigh the cost of such pondering
>>>>>> when the final decision is predetermined?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you can identify such benefits yourself. For example, 
>>>>> suppose a
>>>>> tribe is faced with a decision of moving elsewhere or staying in a
>>>>> marginal environment. Pondering the pros and cons can be life-saving.
>>>>
>>>> It can only be life-saving if they have control over the decision
>>>> (free will). If the decision is made for them (determinism), then the
>>>> pondering makes no difference.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========