Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Martin Harran Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Making your mind up Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:24:37 +0100 Organization: University of Ediacara Lines: 222 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: 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="80259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 To: talk-origins@moderators.individual.net Cancel-Lock: sha1:z0q5A0pZA4F6wX1gDxBrpndTg7Q= sha256:heUn8oEyfGpTF1N6S08YiE6h4YIKoMkhpLV5OxH1VJM= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 375F122976C; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:24:50 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BC2229758 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:24:47 -0400 (EDT) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1ruDLD-00000003ZOr-1y6M; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 17:24:55 +0200 by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1ruDKw-00000002084-3osC; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 17:24:38 +0200 by relay1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1ruDKw-000000031EO-3Vep; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 17:24:38 +0200 for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with local-bsmtp (envelope-from ) id 1ruDKv-00000002SCl-2kIW; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 17:24:37 +0200 X-Path: individual.net!not-for-mail X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net ZRFkRZcdZtnbbOw1Q5IILg5CMT/wpg75fyljBwWFIajUmpxdOY X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO Bytes: 13352 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? 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? > >> 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. > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> I'm actually pretty sure she didn't do any of those physical things ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========