Article <1f823jtu9bf4s4aimra00dmoq8pofn2bg0@4ax.com>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <1f823jtu9bf4s4aimra00dmoq8pofn2bg0@4ax.com>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<1f823jtu9bf4s4aimra00dmoq8pofn2bg0@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
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: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:55:03 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1f823jtu9bf4s4aimra00dmoq8pofn2bg0@4ax.com>
References: <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> <9OWdndF8JfhASrL7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <8g003jp51shkm5dmcbuq9umlopovtnbeeh@4ax.com> <i2a13j5gtr1po7540l8ui4kfo494tb2tj4@4ax.com>
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="26380"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L1qq9uN3MgrSTXh5tyghU1JbGdo=
Bytes: 7922

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:15:00 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:29:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:24:45 +0000, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>>>Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>Determinism and free will are not incompatible.
>>>
>>Not sure how that works, assuming the Wiki entry is
>>accurate:
>>"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in
>>the universe, including human decisions and actions, are
>>causally inevitable."
>>
>>To me, "causally inevitable" removes the possibility of free
>>will by making the concept of "choice" irrelevant; if your
>>decision is causally inevitable it's not a decision at all.
>
>
>I think they are only incompatible if one argues exclusively for one
>or the other. As I remarked earlier in this discussion, it reminds me
>a bit of the Nature vs Nurture debate, the "bit of both" answer also
>applies here.
>
I tend to agree; it's neither all "decide in vacuo" nor all
"paint by numbers".
>
>I have to go out later on today. I will wear long trousers and a
>raincoat rather than shorts and a t-shirt. Whilst that is arguably a
>free will choice, I don't even have to think about it - the fact that
>it is cold and raining has effectively made the decision for me.
>
>On the other hand, let's imagine I am still working and have been
>offered a super promotion, a job I would love to do and a substantial
>increase in salary. It means, however, a move to a different city,
>disrupting family life and my children's education. There is no
>obvious correct answer there, it will involve consideration of a whole
>range of factors so I will need to take time for reflection and
>discussion with my family before I make a decision. There are some
>deterministic factors there - I wouldn't have to make the decision if
>I hadn't been offered the promotion, the views of my family will have
>an influence on my decision - but I don't believe my final decision is
>determined in advance by those factors.
>
Agreed.
>>
>>(This in an example of why I tend to avoid discussions in
>>philosophy; as with Talmudic scholars, any 3 individuals
>>have at least seven opinions, most contradictory. :-) )
>>>
-- 

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