Summations Only

An interesting subject came up in the "Does science ask and answer "why" questions?" thread:In Message 349In Message 350If neither of them have done so, yet, I'd like to propose a thread that can address this.I'd like to see more on how the Illusion (or a non-illusory manifestation of it as alluded to in 1.6180339's quantum entanglement) of Free Will may also help in understanding things like self-awareness.Would computers never be able to have anything more than the illusion they had free will, if somehow we had something a little less negative in connotation than "illusion", perhaps along the way of disentanglement? How would we know the difference? What would it matter anyway?Thank you.

In Message 137 Son Goku writes: While I have no argument with these numbers, I think we should not forget to include the element of Chaos Theory leading up to the .001 second information processing. There would appear to be, at an extremely unlikely chance, a minimum of some 10^17 micro-brain wavefunction collapses leading up to the brain processing the "event" - in quotes here because this "event" appears to be a complex collusion of gazillions of collapses that may be, perhaps, slightly more accurately termed a "meaningful subdecision". This seems like a perfect opportunity for Chaos Theory to come in, pound it's steroidized chest, bellow loudly and reek havoc without resistance. Intractable mathematically complete conclusions based on starting conditions determined by quantum dynamics? No - this to me creates indeterminancy in spades. Think of a pachinko game with a ping pong ball falling through 10^17 layers of nails. But there are Attractors in the form of world view feedback rewards.A slight change, even in where a thin bent blade of grass pokes out of waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway, may determine, unlikely as it may not, whether the old indian fisherman on the dock at end of the Seaway's Atlantic mouth is able to pick up the wooden Paddle-To-The-Sea canoe which he carved as a boy on the shores of Lake Nipigon a lifetime ago.Consider Wheat Field With Crows: Vincent Van Gogh painted this picture and then killed himself right there at the scene, or so the story goes. There are 5 crows completely below the horizon, 1 partially below and above, and some 33+ odd others (counting crows anyone?) depending on your interpretation of what is a crow and what is a dark spot in the foreboding sky. Perhaps his extreme mental state would be easier to observe than most, if equipment meeting Modulous' approval was brought to bear on this scene. I thought of this picture to illustrate some relatively easier aspects of the exercise of free will. Here is a man who is experiencing excruciating pain in his mind every second of his life and yet is still able to will this painting into existence.Who among us here would argue - if we could repeat history right up this moment, under the same identical exact matching conditions, external & internal in Vincent's state of mind (about to commit suicide) leading up to Van Gogh starting this painting - that we would get the identical exact same painting every time we repeat? Not me.There is most certainly an indeterminancy. Just his physical ability alone to paint a crow in the exact same spot is a factor. If a crow is too far out of place, Van Gogh would likely fix it. But can he get it exactly where he wants? No, but he can get it "close enough". Yes. Would he always have 5 crows below the horizon? Perhaps, because - like the banana/shit sandwich - he knows what he wants and has "enough" control to do it often enough to remain a painter trying to place 5 below. But everything in the painting can only, at best, wind up being "close enough" to the exact place & color & texture he wants. He has a feedback system working with his inexact muscles and eyes and the rest of his senses. He may even have only a vague idea of what he wants and it isn't until he paints it that he sees and recognizes that this is what he wanted all along.In Message 326, Straggler points to a link, Wiki on Freewill. In this link there is a section, on neuroscience that shows a delay from the time a subject begins brain activity to the time the subjects perceives having made the choice to flip a wrist. In the link to readiness potential we see this: For me, the illusion of freewill is the sensation of that which the individual wants to accomplish happening "close enough" and "often enough" to give a feedback of success in accomplishing their will. It is a sensation that the individual is in control of their will, albeit not perfectly because of micro-indeterminancy and the nature of Chaos Theory's exemplary field data. It is a feedback system born & learned throughout life to support the wants of this individual as tempered by their world view. However, in my opinion, it is no more of an illusion than what all of the other senses provide.Everything in Reality, after all, is always some kind of an illusion to us, ultimately, subjectively, pastiched together as best we can to perceive an assumed existent reality with our imperfect senses. Remember, a primary assumption science must accept is that objective data is trying to tell us the truth about Reality.

Zen Deist writes: But isn't this just counter to the idea of free will - to bring up examples that may be explained away by obsessive compulsive determinism?

Modulous writes: Modulous, and Dr. Adequate and Straggler and bluegenes, et al - are you guys so against Dualism that you have to cling more strongly to Determinism than you should? I don't think so, but I am scratching my head here.I have been avidly following this thread of course, but I sense that my opinion on Determinism is decidedly in the minority amongst the participants here. My opinion is that Determinism is bogus. For me Dualism is also bogus (it basically requires something Supernatural). But why do I think Determinism is bogus?For me it's all chaos that can only be characterized by probabilities. In my studies of Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics, the ability to predict the state of the universe a Planck unit of time later could not be completely derived from the current state, and thus to string together gazillions of Planck time units later, you are at best looking only at relative likelihoods. Something non-deterministic is very definitely going on. A fruit fly in the bathroom distracts the man shaving for a brief second, enough to cut his face and delay the moment he pulls out of the driveway in his car and winds up in an accident that changes your whole day/life/whatever.A planet in orbit is affected by all of the other planets as well as the sun: the many-body problem has not been solved. There are, at best, numerical integrations with fairly well-known error term growths over time. Can the planet decide to wobble slightly off the numerical path? Well, no - it's just a rock (but there have been some science fiction exceptions to this notion that remain unevidenced in our consensus of what reality is). Can a rabbit decide to wobble slightly off the numerical path? Ahah...now things are different, aren't they? Is the ability to decide to wobble in this manner what we mean by Free? For me, not exactly, although it is important.......I feel I am stuck like those sanctimonious State Prosecutors arguing that they don't know what pornography is, but they'll know it when they see it.What does this have to do with Free Will (maybe even as opposed to plain vanilla Will, whatever that is)? Not much at the surface, but when you dig down to the nitty gritty - it's everything important. As I have said earlier, to me, it's the sensation developed through a feedback system each individual develops over their life as they experience chaos. Yes, it is illusory. But so is your mental construct of the image in your mind of the tree you are looking at out the window, which you also learned throughout your life experience from the start. One might argue, "Well - the tree is something real. Is Free Will real?" I will argue it is, but only to the extent that all of us know it and have experienced it. Not everyone on the planet has experienced a tree. There is much more to explore.For me, the sensation of Free Will is very much at the core of what it means to be self-aware. I do not see how something can be self-aware without an awareness of what it wants. And what it wants is developed from the beginning, using a feedback system that has, over time, rejected certain impulses as being counter-productive, while other impulses have had positive results that further flesh out what these wants are. Free Will is the sensation that you are in control of yourself, as confirmed by the feedback.

Modulous writes: So this would be like some kind of Virtual Indeterminancy? No - I have a disagreement with this when unleashed upon the universe, all the way up to maybe even Stephen Hawking, as he may be being misinterpreted here, on the effect of quantum randomness. Here is why:There are some 10^80th atoms in our observed universe that are within the realm of quantum physics. Even in each of our own little space, such as a closet of shirts - which are more on the order of an Avogadro's number of atoms, there are still a huge number (some 10^23rd and more) of events to consider.There is a Law of Large Numbers that says the events of each will statistically average out to extremely close to the predicted transition from time T to time T plus a Planck time unit. For example, we can show that the odds on your next breath of air will contain a molecule breathed by Julius Caesar himself is virtually certain. But it won't be 100%. Chaos Theory is deterministic as you say, so at time T Chaos Theory kicks in and the universe starts to move towards whatever Strange Attractors there are to bear on this. Then we transition to time T plus a Planck unit. Now the situation is ever so very slightly different from the Maximum Likelihood transition's predicted result. Now Chaos Theory kicks in again on a very faintly readjusted set of Strange Attractors. We have a different starting point for Chaos. And Chaos Theory shows us that even the smallest differences in the initial conditions can make a vast difference down the road. Then we move to time T + 2 Planck units. Then T + 3, then T + 4 and so on. A Planck unit of time is extremely small (about 5.39x10^-44sec). By the time we get to the brain's ability to process a thought, gazillions of these modifications to the conditions that the Chaos worm is chewing on will have transpired.Yes, we can observe that the probabilities are heavily swayed in favor of a classical analysis prediction from time T. We have a wonderfully accurate ability to predict the transit of Venus across the Sun this coming June. A truly admirable Confidence Level. Given the number of Planck time transitions, it is ASTONISHING!!! Enough that folks like Hawking can safely argue that in matters on a sufficiently macroscopic scale, we can ignore the mysterious world of Quantum Dynamics - with the possible exception of Schroedinger's Cat. But not all parts of prediction space are so easy. The red shirt/blue shirt example does not have such a Confidence Level (assuming no gunman is in the room threatening your life to pick red at the time).Imagine a scenario where scientists predict the results of a long, protracted and complicated experiment. The ultimate result is ever so slightly off. They will say "we forgot to account for something". While perhaps very true, it may also reflect on how Deterministic they think the world of their experiment is. There is a prejudice Determinism introduces, just like there would be a prejudice Indeterminism introduces ("it was just the flying finger of fuck"). Causality itself may turn out to be yet another anthropomorphic illusion. Correlation does not imply causality. But even more, the transition of the universe at time T to time T + 1 does not require causal agents. It just happens with a shitload of relative probabilities.

bluegenes wries: Thank you.

Son Goku argues: I disagree. Regardless of how accurately the State of a Brain at time T may be completely known (meaning all the environmental, genetic, emotional stuff - everything that could ever be measured forever with whatever equipment might come to bear on this), the State at time T + 1 Planck unit later can only be described in probabilities because of Quantum Dynamics. It will remarkably correspond to the classical prediction, based on these probabilities - but it won't be exact to every atom in the universe, or even every atom in your closet full of shirts. There are so many events that even a few will not follow the Maximum Likelihood. Chaos Theory demonstrates that even the smallest thing can make a difference. While Chaos Theory is deterministic, it is only deterministic on the conditions of the universe it finds itself in at that Planck moment. The next Planck moment later the conditions are ever so slightly different, or maybe astonishingly the same as, from the Maximum Likelihood prediction. Chaos then chews on the new stuff.

Perdition asks: In Message 197 I said: I might even go so far as to say that the moment you become aware of what you want, you have an illusion of free will. You could be tied up and immobilized, blindfolded and taped over your mouth, but that won't stop you from being able to think of escape or of flowers or mentally composing music or those sorts of things.

Son Goku writes: Ah, thank you.But if I could speak in my best Maxwell Smart "would you believe" voice, how about: Would you believe if each atomic system interaction counts as a measurement and thus decoheres the region it is in, could there not be other regions in the brain still in the state of quantum entanglement? The time scale of a classical chaotic process might mean it takes some time for an atomic system interaction to get over to another unmeasured region, or for that matter all the regions that have not been measured yet. Maybe by then the first one has gone back to a state of being unmeasured, that is, reentangled, no?So you have would all these atomic interactions constantly going on in all regions of the brain, decohering willy nilly.....Isn't the decoherence of a brain state's region just a way of setting the initial conditions for classical chaos to operate in that particular region? And wouldn't all these regions resume becoming entangled when they get the chance? A region could be very small.I guess I need some more help in understanding this.

Perdition & CS are discussing randomness: Actually - I am, to an extent. I am arguing that what we call and identify within us as Free Will is the sensation of accomplishing what we want in spite of the chaos outside of us and the chaos within us. What we want is of course determined by genetics, physical environment, cultural upbringing and everything else, including seeing a robin fly by our window 30 years ago, plus a feedback not getting what we want all the time and finding out that there were better things we wanted that override the disappointment of not getting the immediate thing we wanted. So yes, Perdition, what we want is very dependent on the previous states. And what we want heavily, almost exclusively, drives our Will. But there is an indeterminancy in the next instantiation of the universe. A small, stubborn element of chaos that is intractable by all analysis right down to the final emission of some photon of interest. Free Will is a sensation of overcoming this chaos. I decide to raise my right arm. The arm does not plunge downward or erupt into butterflies or slap me in the face. It raises as planned. But does it exactly move in the manner that I aimed in my head? No. But it moves close enough to give me the sensation that I am in control. That I am responsible. It's my fault that when I did that I knocked your beer out of your hands. It was not all just chaos.This means I also am making a statement that the universe cannot be not fully determined, it is not a Swiss Watch, it cannot be calculated from the Big Bang forward, or even from a minute ago forward. To disagree with Albert, oh yes, "he" does or has played with dice to the extent that we cannot even prove "he" is necessary (Rrhain's chocolate sprinkles).Just like sometimes we reach hard to return a tennis ball to a hard spot on the other side and fail, sometimes our free will screws up and we miss our aim. It is not exact. Sometimes we think we missed our aim, only to find out on rare occasion that we actually hit a better aim. There is a hysteresis between the initial move and the sensation, perhaps those 0.35 seconds from those experiments, or, at a minimum, those 0.001 seconds Son Goku cited. The thing is, we don't know what we did until after we did it. It's a feedback system. And, when I think about, yes - it is scary!

Excellent discussions going on!I have a NEW small opinion to add to my other small opinions so far in this thread. It is this: When a gun is held to my head, ASTONISHINGLY!, I do NOT transfer any of my Free Will to the gunman. I may indeed transfer some of my ordinary, plain, bodily Will and pick the Red shirt. But the gunman can never, ever take away the fact that I really wanted to pick the Blue shirt. Even if I cannot pick the Blue shirt, I still wanted to. And that, my friends, is the distinction. Free Will is all caught up in what I want to do, not what others want me to do, not what I wind up doing.Look at the old Zen chestnut: I am being chased by a hell-tiger, who is breathing Universe-destroying flames, to the edge of a cliff and fall off. Down below are the numerous massive ruins of broken MRI-watches with freshly formed razor-sharp knives of broken glass and steel, complete with still inexorably moving, grinding, crushing gear teeth. But, as fortune would have it, I manage to catch and hold on to a branch of a species of plant that is compatible with living on the sides of these sorts of cliffs. On the extremity of this branch is a quantum-flower. My weight, because of eating too many triple cheese hamburgers and french fries, is too much for this poor plant to remain entangled and it begins to rip out of the side of the cliff, decohering it's wave function. There are only moments left before I can still climb back up to the hell-tiger or, if I wait until it gives way, plunge down to the knives. Zen suggests that I devote my attention instead to the beauty of the entangled flower. Dig this: I STILL have 100% of my own Free Will, as illusory as I already have conceded, to devote my attention to the flower!p.s. - to the admins? a small modest vote here to keep this thread alive beyond the 350 limit....

First off, let me express my gratitude to all who came and participated in this thread. Thank you.While I think we may have spent too much time on a certain sub-area of the discussion, I felt that the viewpoints argued forthwith were well-tempered and cogent. Good show.My own view, perhaps, might be better stated in a tentative format of conjectures.My thoughts, if you will:1. The Universe and how we see it is most certainly NOT deterministic. It is damn close and we get amazing accuracy in science. BUT.... We have at the absolute bottom level of things an inherent quantum indeterminancy. An atom here could give off a particle to react with a molecule there*. That molecule might be the one that drifts into another. With the Law of Large Numbers, we can predict the overall behavior to a good degree, but not exactly. We also have the totally intractable predictability of Chaos Theory, even though once the initial conditions are known, the rest follows.... We have Son Goku saying that these 2 realms cannot communicate significantly.I remember the old ping pong ball Walt Disney show experiment of a roomful of mouse traps set with 2 ping balls each. The experiment is to demonstrate nuclear fission. The guy tosses a ping ball into the room and the movie cameras record the result as he shuts the door before any ping pong ball can get close to him. To me, when I saw it, it was not so much an excellent demo of fission as a much superior demo of chaos. Was the later found-out fact that earlier for breakfast his 1950's Amana wife cooked scrambled eggs on the new range possibly a factor in the muscular motion of his toss?Maybe we should look at a simple pachinko-style game. Nails on a board bounce a dropped ping pong sort of ball and eventually it falls to the bottom into a slot with a score. Is my proposed Free Will feedback process really nothing more than bending the nails to favor what we want, however stiffly they can be bent?We have gas laws based on statistics of randomly moving particles. But we cannot determine where every atom in the room will be at arbitrary time T later. To me, Determinism is also a very strong Illusion. At the heighth of the acceptance of Newtonian physics, in all its glory of the Law of Gravitation, it was felt by many that the whole Universe ran like a well-jeweled watch - certainly not an opinion held by any significant population of reputable physicists today. This is an outdated viewpoint. Now, fast forward to MRIs and even to some futuristic machines that could record physical processes in the human brain right down to each and every sub-neuron firing level - given even the simply, pure mathematical intractability of Chaos Theory, which Son Goku has already admittedly allowed in the brain's processing, how could there ever be anything better than, at best, a most likely-hood (probabilistic) forecast of what the subject might pick for a shirt color out of the closet?
..No - I accept Chaos.
..2. As any self-awareness in an individual species increases, so does the Illusion of Free Will ("I" will gallop/hop/fly/swim over to that side of this thing "I" choose to call a "rock" instead of to the other side because "I" think it would be more fun=rewarding to "my" world-view as accumulated throughout "my" life) as opposed to some ordinary unemotional stimulus-response evidenced Will (my chemical muscles will retract my protoplasm extrusion away from the acidic levels "I" sense over that way without even thinking "fun" versus "not fun"). There are probably endorphins at the chemical level that do this. But it is very complicated and is changing constantly in a feedback manner, as most things in the natural world do.
..3. Any such species-level of the Illusion of Free Will is on the same level as the Illusions of all the other imperfect inputs to the individual through the senses of their body and minds. It is NOT a special Illusion. Some people in this thread have commented that it must be a very strong Illusion. I submit that when I look out my window and see the Oak tree across the driveway, that this, too, is a very strong Illusion. In fact, all of our senses provide a very strong Illusion.
..4. Feedback reinforces behavior that works - in accordance with our self-awareness - which gives us a good feeling when what we learn early gets rewarded in a manner we enjoy when we do it, from the moment of self-awareness. When we experience the sensation of doing what we wanted to do, in spite of the objectively unevidenced Determinism of the Universe - there is always an Error term!!, we experience that as meaning that we have successfully exercised our Free Will in spite of the Error term!!. This sensation of Free Will always occurs after the fact, just like the sensation of burning your finger always occurs after the fact. We live, we learn. What we wish to be our Free Will changes and gets modified to fit.
.. ..In this discussion there seemed to be an absence of recognition that there could be more categories than those presented. There was a discussion of libertarianism versus determinism, which was very well presented to discredit libertarianism. But then it seemed to devolve into a false argument: If Libertarianism is False, then we have must have Determinism - and then therefore we have 2 subflavors: the Compatabalist versus the strict Newtonian Determinist. Dr. Adequate was dead-on when he argued that Free Will is linguistically used here with the Man In The sTreet (MITT Romney), but.But, Hello. Indeterminism does NOT require Libertarianism. We can have even total 100% Chaos and still not require the kind of Free Will as those MITT Libertarians would wish to define it. We most certainly do not need to invoke Dualism (which would seem to imply the Supernatural). But even more importantly, we do not need to invoke Determinism to discredit the Libertarian definition. There is no issue of this sort of incompatability.They are not exclusive choices. I think the reality is Indeterminism with the Illusion of Free Will as I have attempted to describe it. It is scary, as noted elsewhere. But we can accept it.
..The next thread I want to explore is: The Illusion of Determinism.
..
....* Hey - who's to say that the process that emits a particle isn't somewhere - deep down inside - something out of Chaos Theory anyway and thus theoretically deterministic - but we cannot look that small so we have to treat the process with probabilities. Hello, what's the difference at our macro scale?