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 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: References: 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= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id E059322976C; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:28:09 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B847E229758 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:28:07 -0400 (EDT) id 106D35DCE2; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4BB65DCBE for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:28:15 +0000 (UTC) by pmx.weretis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932453E8AE for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 18:28:11 +0200 (CEST) id 701693E8C3; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 18:28:11 +0200 (CEST) Content-Language: en-CA X-User-ID: eJwFwQcBwEAIBDBL9NhyWO9fQhNl+2xcTE306cNeByd57qnMohsXFsQKz4Nz+VJPCQWs/Acb6RDV In-Reply-To: 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 > wrote: > >> On 2024-04-09 3:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote: >>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:14:12 -0500, DB Cates >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2024-04-07 10:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:48:09 -0500, DB Cates >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2024-04-06 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:29:20 -0500, DB Cates >>>>>>> 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 ) 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 ==========