Re: Making your mind up

On 2024-04-09 10:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:36:07 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2024-04-09 3:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:14:12 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 2024-04-07 10:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:48:09 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 2024-04-06 2:38 AM, 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.

>
See, right there. My claim is that 'deliberating over the options' is
what you are determined by the circumstances to do and is part of the
circumstances that determines what you follow it up with. Assuming that
there is some "point" beyond this is assuming that free will exists.
>
    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.

>
It's because the "pondering" is part of the determined action.

>
That just takes us full circle back to my original question - what is
the point or the value of that pondering if the decision is
predetermined?

>
Why does it have to have a 'point' or 'value'?

>
I think I've answered that in what I said below about evolution. There
is an 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. As I said already, I see
considerable cost involved in this pondering in terms of brain
resources, but I don't see any benefits if the decision is determined
by external factors. Can you suggest any benefits that would outweigh
the cost?

 

During the (present conditions determined) pause conditions change that cause (determined) better decisions.

Apparently not.
 

>

Pre 'pondering' it is
just the determined results (one of which is the pondering) of the
conditions at that time. Post 'pondering' the determined action is the
result of conditions at *that* time which includes any changes due to
the 'pondering' among other changes.

>
In evolutionary terms, I can see various disadvantages to that
pondering. The brain is the most demanding organ in our body,
consuming around 20% of the total energy used. Pondering a decision
can often distract us from other important things we should be using
our brain for and can indirectly have a very negative affect on our
lives. It seems to me that it would make sense to weed out unnecessary
demands unless they have a clear evolutionary advantage. I can't see
any such evolutionary advantage in pondering being added to a
predetermined process.

>
How does 'free will' avoid this problem?

>
First of all, I don't think that is really a relevant question - I'm
not debating this issue to make a case for free will, I'm challenging
the robustness of determinism in its own right. I certainly don't want
to fall into the trap of claiming that I can prove Theory B is right
by identifying shortcomings in Theory A, something for which I have
previously criticised ID, particularly Stephen Meyer. [1]
>
Having said that, I don't think it is a big problem for free will as I
can see benefits for pondering in that context. If I have freedom in
making my decisions, then that means I am ultimately responsible for
those decisions and their outcome. It is obviously beneficial for me
to become as good a decision-maker as possible; pondering decisions
and all their foreseeable outcomes can help me get better at it.
>

Why doesn't that same argument work for the existence of 'pondering' in
a deterministic scenario?

 What advantage is there in becoming a good decision maker if you
aren't making decisions?
>

Are you becoming a better decision maker (non-deterministic) or are different conditions determining better 'decisions'?

 

>

FWIW, the more I read and debate this subject, the more it reminds me
of the Nature vs Nurture debate, the "bit of both" answer also applies
here.
>

Yep. It's just the spectre (ha) of the supernatural that seems to
inevitably arise when 'free will' is invoked that bothers me.

 What bothers me is when people dismiss things out of hand just because
they might have even a hint of the supernatural.
>

Hint? Is is supernatural and that bothers me because it invalidates much of what we believe we know about the universe.

>

>
>
>

>

>
Tied in with that is our ability to change our minds after we have
made a decision - has determinism some convoluted way of working that
predetermines what way we will make a decision but also predetermins
that we will change it?

>
Having made a decision plus time (other things happening) have changed
the environment, so why not a different decision being determined?

>
We have been redecorating recently. The choice for wallpaper for a
particular room came down to two papers. My wife (who finally decides
these things <smile>) picked paper A and we bought it. Two days later,
she changed her mind and decided she's rather have paper B. We hadn't
even opened the paper so we were able to take it back to the shop and
get it swapped. I can't see any change of environment in that.
>

Your wife went into suspended animation for two days!? Amazing.
Seriously, do you not think it possible, nay, probable that she
continued to 'ponder' her decision, observed the room in different
lighting conditions, paid heightened consideration to the existing
colours in the room, etc. and that this might have led to her changing
her mind?

>
I'm actually pretty sure she didn't do any of those physical things
because of other things we were doing that weekend. We made our
decision in the shop on Saturday, and she was completely satisfied
with it (there was actually very little to choose between the two
papers, both were a jungle theme with exotic birds and plants in
similar colours). We brought the paper home and left it aside for me
to start papering later in the week.

>
You're putting it up yourself? Have you done it before? If not, even
with prepasted paper you may want to consider the old English Musichall
standard "Father Papered the Parlour".
(I never thought I would be able to make that reference; I couldn't
resist the opportunity)

>
LOL. I've been an avid DIY'er all my life and wallpapering is actually
one of my better skills. I'm a terrible painter, however - I can just
about manage emulsion on walls and ceilings but I am truly awful when
it comes to gloss paint! I also have to admit that turning 73 this
year, my DIY energy is rapidly declining so I have a few jobs I want
to get done this year and after that will be time for hired help :(
>

>
   My wife passed no further remark

on it until Monday morning when she announced "I've changed my mind, I
think I prefer the other paper." I chuckled and asked her why and she
said she didn't know, she "just liked the other paper better."

>
So, no free will involved. "It just happened" sounds more like a
deterministic action.

>
At the risk of provoking the woke brigade, after 51 years of marriage
it seems to me that  "It just happened" is as good an explanation as
any for explaining why wives change their mind :)
>

But of course for us any change of mind is always due to a well
considered, logical decision. /s

>

Obviously, there was some rethinking process but I believe it was
entirely sub-conscious, there was no real"pondering" in any active
sense involving the input of new information. The exact details of the
process are  irrelevant, my question is not *how* she changed her
mind, it's what was the point of determinism leading her to a decision
on Saturday that was going to change on Monday?

>
THERE IS NO "POINT", it is just what happens due to the totality of the
conditions *at the time*.

>

>
A reminder that in the Libet experiments so beloved of determinists,
there was no precursor activity found in regard to making *major*
decisions or changing one's mind so how does that fit in?
>

I personally don't think those experiments have much to say about it one
way or the other.
>

>
I agree with you but they do seem to be a mainstay for those who argue
in favour of determinism.

--

>

>
--

>

>
--

>
>
[1]
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ
>

>
--

 

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)