Article <v10o4k$ani4$3@solani.org>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v10o4k$ani4$3@solani.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Making your mind up
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 14:04:53 -0500
Organization: University of Ediacara
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v10o4k$ani4$3@solani.org>
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>
 <5kjv2jpbr4805jm7hr0sfpnetns066fiu9@4ax.com> <v0p85i$692a$1@solani.org>
 <56j03jtgl91alj4s4lvgkcrsfu2ikh6mqj@4ax.com> <v10iqi$al6e$1@solani.org>
 <mvj73j5cn44c0udjda7rnr001vustff2cq@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="5013"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UAx4iGHhHjoKec+n/v/LNgpZk9U=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <mvj73j5cn44c0udjda7rnr001vustff2cq@4ax.com>
Bytes: 11229
Lines: 170

On 2024-05-02 12:46 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 12:34:10 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
> 
>> On 2024-04-29 8:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
>> Note: I was asking a question about *my* viewpoint concerning "something
>> resembling choice" given "probabilistic nature of base reality", not
>> ascribing that viewpoint to you.
>>
> I misinterpreted your post; my bad.

No problem.
>>
>> My understanding of the "probabilistic nature of base reality" is that
>> some subatomic events are truly random and can have, over the long term,
>> gross effects and very occasionally immediate gross effects.
>>
> Usually more the former than the latter, but yes, I believe
> that is correct.
>>
>> How does
>> this allow for "something resembling choice"?
>>>>
> It would mean that the universe is not, as Newton believed
> and as Planck disproved, "clockwork". And this in turn means
> (to me, at least) that events are not strictly the result of
> prior events; i.e., not fully deterministic. So if free will
> (or choice, if you prefer) and strict determinism are the
> only possibilities then free will, while restricted, is
> possible.

How does that possible random variation resemble 'free will' in any way? 
What would be the restriction?
>>
>>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========