Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<56j03jtgl91alj4s4lvgkcrsfu2ikh6mqj@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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= Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 191DE22976C; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:45:21 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DDE229758 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:45:18 -0400 (EDT) id 3AA275DC2C; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A795DC29 for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:45:46 +0000 (UTC) id A9C40DC01A9; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 03:45:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 03:45:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+cqTbvsnG03h0XZJPKk6GtHjbdhHZTKd3WkAlbXanUuaz5IyGHKd7G 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