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: Fri, 3 May 2024 18:14:17 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v132gq$kkdc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3udo2jd1tkcimin2bf3b3h6klc35s4cppe@4ax.com>
 <v0k2vn$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$1@solani.org> <mvj73j5cn44c0udjda7rnr001vustff2cq@4ax.com>
 <v10o4k$ani4$3@solani.org> <r4583j51957ij439sn447pei0ecj28nss0@4ax.com>
 <-BmdnS3M_KEyXKn7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <770a3jlntggrb9nf236p0of7306f13c8kn@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="38615"; 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:CxClNKV9+65C3sytJe1Vgs6Ptw8=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id D4E1A229782; Fri,  3 May 2024 12:14:19 -0400 (EDT)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1226229765
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Fri,  3 May 2024 12:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
	id 71F307D12B; Fri,  3 May 2024 16:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
	by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524F07D11E
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Fri,  3 May 2024 16:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
	id B91A1DC01A9; Fri,  3 May 2024 18:14:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 18:14:18 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <770a3jlntggrb9nf236p0of7306f13c8kn@4ax.com>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX186HeBI1VKqg5ZBhFgruiv09CsyUqhPAUA=
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5151

On 03/05/2024 17:24, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2024 10:51:27 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
> 
>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:04:53 -0500, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>> The random variation resembles nothing; it's simply an area
>>> where events aren't predetermined by their antecedents. And
>>> since the main objection to the concept of free will seems
>>> to be a philosophical one,  based on determinism, in areas
>>> where determinism doesn't govern events the objection is
>>> irrelevant. I suppose it's more an abstract logical point
>>> than anything rigorous, but I have yet to see anyone explain
>>> how determinism applies to random events, thus still ruling
>>> out free will.
>>>
>> How would random events support free will?
>>
> I believe that what I wrote above covers that.

I feel you're maybe seeing the philosophical objection to free will 
based on determinism but you're missing a parallel one involved in 
random choice. Basically many people feel that a choice being random 
isn't "free will" anymore than it being predetermined is. That "free 
will" still requires decisions to be under our control somehow, which 
randomness negates. Like "free will" involves "free" and "will" and 
determinism gets in the way of the "free" part but randomness gets in 
the way of the "will" part.

Put another way, if we translate it into the legal domain (the area 
where notions of "free will" have actual practical relevance), someone 
with a mental disorder that leads them to predictably and unavoidably do 
a bad thing would be considered legally incompetent - but someone with a 
mental disorder that lead them to behave randomly would be considered 
just as incompetent. Either way the issue is not having control over 
one's actions.