Re: Making your mind up

On Sat, 04 May 2024 04:12:27 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> 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. 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. Testimony, of course, is irrelevant, since it may
itself be deterministic. I do see the problem, which comes
down to whether to accept of the validity of personal
experience. I happen to choose (there's that word again...)
to do so.
 

I’m a partisan toward qualia myself, but would like to point out it is
nearly synonymous with the bugbear term “lived experience” which makes it
all the more amusing.
 
I think the problem with conceptualizing free will is on the one hand it’s
popular kneejerk equivalence with libertarianism and on the other hand the
common focus on Libet type experiments that find neural antecedents that
occur only a short time before an action and the perception that one has
previewed it and enacted it. Deliberation over longer periods of time and
the self-control to squelch impulsive interference are the more interesting
things at play.
 

Randomized cricket chirps…
>

What sort of reply/response were you expecting? None of that
addresses the basic issue (free will), which is
intrinsically untestable by the methods of science.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov