Article <v00vn6$3ps2p$1@dont-email.me>

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 <v00vn6$3ps2p$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v00vn6$3ps2p$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 19:57:56 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v00vn6$3ps2p$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <uvtcdf$2ts4t$1@dont-email.me> <v00pf7$6ph9$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="20640"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gba44VmcTrg7l0peVq5B1UhUjdA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v00pf7$6ph9$1@solani.org>
Bytes: 8161

On 20/04/2024 18:11, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 4:10 AM, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 19/04/2024 03:36, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 4/7/24 8:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if I ever talked about this on this forum but I had an 
>> epiphany on definitions of "random" when looking at regression plots 
>> ages ago. Which is that "random" isn't a word that applies to a thing, 
>> it applies to *the relationship between two things*. So if you plot 
>> the temperature of a place over 100 years against the days in the year 
>> you'll get an up-and-down trend showing summer and winter, and if you 
>> control for that trend you'll be left with a cloud of "random noise" 
>> that represents the year-to-year variation in temperature. On the 
>> other hand if you plot the same temperature points against the year 
>> you'll get a trendline representing the year-to-year variation (maybe 
>> a rising trend for example), and if you control for it you'll be left 
>> with random noise that represents the within-year variation. The same 
>> thing can be "random noise" or "trend" just depending on your choice 
>> of x-axis! Because "randomness" describes the correlation between two 
>> variables (or more specifically, the lack thereof).
>>
>>
>> I think that extends to almost all uses of the word "random", there is 
>> almost always a "with respect to..." hidden in there that clarifies 
>> what variables it is one is claiming are uncorrelated. For example how 
>> is a coin toss random even though it's deterministic? Well, it's 
>> random *with respect to* any guesses the thrower and observers can 
>> make as to what the outcome of the throw will be. It's not random with 
>> respect to precise position and velocity of the coin a millisecond 
>> before it lands, but that's not what it's being asked to be random 
>> with respect to.
>>
>>
>> Or in the context of evolution, the "random" in "random mutation" 
>> means "random with respect to whether the mutation is beneficial, 
>> harmful or neutral for the organism".
>>
>>
>> In the context of Martin Harran's comment on using a random number 
>> generator to make the decision I'd say that the randomness in question 
>> is with respect to all of the pro-and-con factors that otherwise would 
>> go into making the decision. For example if we're debating whether to 
>> go on vacation at the beach or in the mountains and we can't decide, I 
>> could say "OK let's just pick the one that's closest" and we wouldn't 
>> think of that as "random"; it's choosing one pro-or-con factor to 
>> prioritize above others. Same with "We'll go with what you prefer". On 
>> the other hand if I say "some neutral third party will hide a shoe in 
>> the house, first to find it gets to decide" that *could* be random 
>> even though hiding and finding the shoe aren't what we'd think of as 
>> random processes, because who finds the shoe (and therefore, what 
>> decision gets made) is presumably uncorrelated to any of the reasons 
>> that might otherwise have contributed to the decision. If it's not 
>> uncorrelated (because you're better at finding things, or I bribed the 
>> third party to tell me where they hid it) then we no longer think of 
>> the decision as having been "random".
>>
>>
>>  From that point of view the "random" decision is indeed completely 
>> compatible with determinism, the same way a random coin toss is.
>>
> That is not the type of 'random' that I am talking about in the 'free 
> will/determination' discussion. There are physical events that are, even 
> in principle, unpredictable (which unstable atom will be the next to 
> fission and where the alpha particle goes and with how much energy). 
> Once that has happened then those results become part of the conditions 
> that determine what happens next. So I see short term determination and 
> long term indeterminacy characterized as determination with an overlay 
> of some random input.
> The necessary randomness of this variation from determinism offers no 
> support or comfort to the dualist position.
> 

There have been many participants in this conversation; in this case the 
two directly involved in this mention of random number generators were 
Martin Harran and LDagget, who might have had their own ideas of what 
they meant by the concept. But thank you for explaining what you mean by 
the term, it really goes to show that it's a very, vary ambiguous word 
to be using blithely in this kind of discussion! (which isn't to say we 
shouldn't use it, I think there's a reason that we do, but yeah let's 
not assume we all agree on what it means or implies).

Something I could have added but didn't think in the moment is that it 
also depends what we mean by "determinism". Like, if it's "the decision 
could be predicted from full knowledge of the person's brain and their 
pro and con list" then some forms of randomness used to split ties could 
genuinely get in the way of that, it really depends on whether we add 
the random factor into the scope of info that would allow us to 
perfectly predict the decision. If it's "fated by the initial conditions 
of the Universe", less so. Like, there's quantum, but that induces its 
own issues in terms of free will (i.e. what we think of as "free will" 
should be neither determinate or random; its naïve form requires that 
decisions be caused by the person's will, and only by the person's will, 
and neither determinism or randomness at their most naïve seem to 
satisfy the constraint)