Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:45:43 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <56j03jtgl91alj4s4lvgkcrsfu2ikh6mqj@4ax.com>
References: <6jc51jl5d89t6q2eik34d3a208cc0djncm@4ax.com> <uvshri$2m9n6$1@dont-email.me> <i0ac2jhk17boli91n7o7bu3i72c252nl6m@4ax.com> <v0b9f3$2da1g$1@dont-email.me> <69lm2jd8t6upgsunjko8195iudot8qirdh@4ax.com> <v0gkut$3pro6$1@dont-email.me> <3udo2jd1tkcimin2bf3b3h6klc35s4cppe@4ax.com> <v0k2vn$kua7$2@dont-email.me> <0g1t2j12g8lvbdlbgshu60t7vk8a1r579v@4ax.com> <v0ogsp$1r7cd$1@dont-email.me> <5kjv2jpbr4805jm7hr0sfpnetns066fiu9@4ax.com> <v0p85i$692a$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="89784"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HurUZ8ja7OVT0h5YHO0AtIdtZ/Y=
Bytes: 9081

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:49:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:

>On 2024-04-29 11:53 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:12:08 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>> 
>>> On 4/28/24 10:32 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:50:12 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/24 4:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:32:27 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get the feeling that predetermination means, to you, that if I am
>>>>>>> predetermined to choose to buy this house (say), then no matter what I
>>>>>>> think, or even if I don't think at all, I will end up deciding to buy
>>>>>>> that house. I could move to Tibet, scramble my brain with acid, and
>>>>>>> spend all my conscious time playing Candy Crush, and still, in a day or
>>>>>>> two, the though will come to me, "I need to buy that house."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not how predeterminism works. In a predetermined world, I find
>>>>>>> myself in need or want of a house, contact a realtor who shows me
>>>>>>> available listings; I visit those houses which are in good price range
>>>>>>> and neighborhoods; probably I am influenced by external factors such as
>>>>>>> the amount of traffic I had to fight through to get there or how hungry
>>>>>>> I am at the time. The good and bad points of the different houses being
>>>>>>> fed into my mind, I eliminate some obvious non-candidates, and let my
>>>>>>> gut guide me to the best of the remaining.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is predetermination at work.  Note that it appears, to all
>>>>>>> observers, exactly the same as non-predetermination. That's why the Free
>>>>>>> Will issue has never been resolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if I'm understanding that correctly, there is no
>>>>>> difference between determinism and non-determinism (or if
>>>>>> you prefer, determination and non-determination), and
>>>>>> therefore "free will" is a bugaboo which is not accepted
>>>>>> although its implications are?
>>>>>
>>>>> No detectable difference between the two. And I should have added "free
>>>>> will" is also wrapped up in religious, personal angst, and equivocation
>>>>> issues, which also contribute to making it a bugaboo.
>>>>>
>>>> OK. I'd point out that the fact that the concept of free
>>>> will is "wrapped up in religious, personal angst, and
>>>> equivocation issues" doesn't make it false.
>>>
>>> My position is not that it is false, but that it is effectively meaningless.
>>>
>>>> And that one
>>>> possible reason why there's no detectable difference is that
>>>> we have no way to detect the operation of free will in
>>>> itself.
>>>
>>> I have given some thought to how, even in theory and with advanced
>>> technology, one might detect free will, and I have come up empty. Some
>>> Star-Trek-like parallel universe thought experiments could conceivably
>>> determine whether the universe was deterministic or not, but even if
>>> not, that only rules out determinism, not the lack of free will.
>>>
>> Yep. I've done the same, although not in any great depth,
>> and come to the same conclusion; the closest I've come is
>> something like, "Well, the probabilistic nature of base
>> reality *seems* to leave room for something resembling
>> choice, but as for testing it...". 
>
>Hmm, what could this "something resembling choice" be, other than 
>something 'outside' reality (ie supernatural) that somehow (magic?) 
>overrides the "probabilistic nature of base reality"?
>
You might want to re-read what I actually wrote, which was
not that anything is "outside reality". Reality, at base, is
probabilistic, not "clockwork".
>
>>It's sometimes amusing to
>> discuss such things as determinism vs. free will, or the
>> number of angels which can occupy a pin point, but it
>> becomes boring fairly quickly due to the lack of any way,
>> even conceptually, to determine the answer. Which, as I
>> noted below, brings it down to a matter of belief in the
>> validity of personal experience.
>
>My, somewhat vague and evolving, view is that it feels like I experience 
>'qualia' and 'make choices' between alternatives and that I am not 
>special, so others who report the same are not philosophical zombies 
>deterministically lying to me. It is a 'real thing'. I see two 
>possibilities. There is some unknown, evidenced phenomenon unrelated to 
>known physics somehow related to some minimal level of complexity of 
>life (dualism/free will) or a, actual activity unknown, manifestation of 
>physical brain activity (determinism). What leads me to believe the 
>second is more likely is the indirect evidence. Alteration of brain 
>activity (physical damage, drugs,etc) causes changes in peoples' 
>reported qualia and changes in (historically expected) personality and 
>range of choices made. This is usually observable with major changes to 
>the brain producing major changes in personality and/or range of 
>choices.but I think it not an unreasonable extrapolation to minor 
>changes in the brain (caused by minor changes in the environment) to 
>cause minor changes in experience/choices due to the same mechanisms.
>
>Your friend George is picking new wallpaper for his living room. Knowing 
>your friend and his living room, you think he will likely pick something 
>off white with a small floral motif in blue.
>You visit and see he chose pale yellow with thin blue striping. You are 
>not surprised by this and on discussing it with him he states he was 
>considering something like what you were thinking but this one really 
>struck him when he saw it in the store.
>Or
>You visit him and see he chose a vibrant, primary coloured geometric 
>zig-zag pattern. You think 'was he on drugs? / dropped on his head?' not 
>'hmm, how unusual'.
>
>So, what is the sourcr of the phenomena we often descibe as 'dualiy' 
>and/or 'free will? We may never know but my personal belief, based on 
>the evidence I have, is that it is almost certainly due to some kind of 
>phyical activity, most likely in the brain (in humans and our close 
>relatives).
>>>
>>>> Testimony, of course, is irrelevant, since it may
>>>> itself be deterministic. I do see the problem, which comes
>>>> down to whether to accept of the validity of personal
>>>> experience. I happen to choose (there's that word again...)
>>>> to do so.
>
>-- 
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov