Re: Making your mind up

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:24:45 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
 

Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

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.
 

Determinism and free will are not incompatible.
 

Not sure how that works, assuming the Wiki entry is
accurate:
"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in
the universe, including human decisions and actions, are
causally inevitable."
 
To me, "causally inevitable" removes the possibility of free
will by making the concept of "choice" irrelevant; if your
decision is causally inevitable it's not a decision at all.
 
(This in an example of why I tend to avoid discussions in
philosophy; as with Talmudic scholars, any 3 individuals
have at least seven opinions, most contradictory. :-) )
>