Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.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: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:12:52 +0100
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 125
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <i0ac2jhk17boli91n7o7bu3i72c252nl6m@4ax.com>
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>
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="87507"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.individual.net
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UG6hKXV7LuqwBW0bqlehB3cDcok= sha256:ig/picAXp41iPZSfShGTahcVECGyQlkLHVD7ZnzCCeU=
Bytes: 9168

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?



>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?

>
>> 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.