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 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: References: <6jc51jl5d89t6q2eik34d3a208cc0djncm@4ax.com> <69lm2jd8t6upgsunjko8195iudot8qirdh@4ax.com> <1e7p2jdn17ohqg8gbgb6d5qmo3nuh6iks5@4ax.com> 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= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id AEA5E22976C; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:56:03 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BA6229758 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:56:01 -0400 (EDT) id 9E8F75DC40; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:56:29 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F36F5DC29 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:56:29 +0000 (UTC) id 22009DC01A9; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:26 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19/BR6ilnBDELGI8aqQnNyBZXAYqfrtcKA= 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 >> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/24 12:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote: >>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:45:37 -0700, Mark Isaak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/22/24 2:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> rOn Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:36:48 -0700, Mark Isaak >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 ==========