Article <hxCdnQvMrqw2KKj7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<hxCdnQvMrqw2KKj7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!3.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: *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 04:12:27 +0000
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 67
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <hxCdnQvMrqw2KKj7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.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>
 <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>
 <VrWdnVlvl9iymLL7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="59140"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Bytes: 6536

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> 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. 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. 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.
>> 
> I’m a partisan toward qualia myself, but would like to point out it is
> nearly synonymous with the bugbear term “lived experience” which makes it
> all the more amusing. 
> 
> I think the problem with conceptualizing free will is on the one hand it’s
> popular kneejerk equivalence with libertarianism and on the other hand the
> common focus on Libet type experiments that find neural antecedents that
> occur only a short time before an action and the perception that one has
> previewed it and enacted it. Deliberation over longer periods of time and
> the self-control to squelch impulsive interference are the more interesting
> things at play. 
> 
Randomized cricket chirps…