Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:45:37 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v0b9f3$2da1g$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>
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="76682"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2tUAzDABUs/JMX5kpdFW3TBnbDw=
In-Reply-To: <i0ac2jhk17boli91n7o7bu3i72c252nl6m@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9236

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. As 
for the cost, that is part of the predetermination (if, indeed, the 
decision is predetermined).

>> and since it is way too
>> complex to do consciously, the processing (probably) works best when the
>> brain is otherwise at rest.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the brain is at rest when we are
> sleeping?

Relatively, yes.  And not just when sleeping, but when relaxing over 
dinner, doing routine tasks, etc.

>>> One exception to that is your suggestion of a
>>> random number generator when the two options look more or less equal
>>> but your problem is that that randomness is very antithesis of
>>> determinism.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. A process can be both random and determined.
>> But that hinges on definitions of random, and is outside my area of
>> competence.
> 
> Sorry, I don't even know what you mean by that.

Not a problem. It's not a topic I will pursue.

-- 
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell