Article <l8d13jh8aosc0g5uac7a05mubu0i6fdan5@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 <l8d13jh8aosc0g5uac7a05mubu0i6fdan5@4ax.com>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<l8d13jh8aosc0g5uac7a05mubu0i6fdan5@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!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: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:10:12 +0100
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 288
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <l8d13jh8aosc0g5uac7a05mubu0i6fdan5@4ax.com>
References: <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> <1e7p2jdn17ohqg8gbgb6d5qmo3nuh6iks5@4ax.com> <v0oimr$1rrd2$1@dont-email.me> <v0p8iq$2118n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="5866"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.individual.net
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KQMuqcXzse9vN9KptQsOj1/9txY= sha256:0jsEFd5p6tZOYR3vgraIuznBRjyzRhskcGZ5b0jaLtM=
Bytes: 18448

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:24 +0200, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:

>On 29/04/2024 18:43, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/26/24 11:57 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:32:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/26/24 12:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:45:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========