Information and free will (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, September 25, 2011, 15:17 (4787 days ago)
David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists:-http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45-Anyone want to argue with his concepts?
Information and free will
DAVID: David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists:-http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45-Anyone want to argue with his concepts?-Amid all the ers and ums, waffle and scientific jargon there emerges the message that nobody understands the nature of consciousness, creativity, free will etc., but both speakers believe in the latter. David Deutsch points out that we are not yet able to make artificial models with all these attributes, which ties in with Matt's pursuit of AI as a possible route to our understanding. It would be interesting, though, to know whether Matt agrees that information can "preserve itself". The procedures that Deutsch describes depend on human interpretation and human methods of preservation. If all humans and their artefacts disappeared, would the information really have a life of its own? Or does he mean that the laws of Nature would still continue to operate (which seems hardly worth saying)? Both speakers have such a boring delivery, however, that maybe I dozed off at a vital moment!
Information and free will
by romansh 
, Saturday, October 01, 2011, 20:57 (4780 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists: > > http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45 > > Anyone want to argue with his concepts? > > Amid all the ers and ums, waffle and scientific jargon there emerges the message that nobody understands the nature of consciousness, creativity, free will etc., but both speakers believe in the latter. David Deutsch points out that we are not yet able to make artificial models with all these attributes, which ties in with Matt's pursuit of AI as a possible route to our understanding. It would be interesting, though, to know whether Matt agrees that information can "preserve itself". The procedures that Deutsch describes depend on human interpretation and human methods of preservation. If all humans and their artefacts disappeared, would the information really have a life of its own? Or does he mean that the laws of Nature would still continue to operate (which seems hardly worth saying)? Both speakers have such a boring delivery, however, that maybe I dozed off at a vital moment!-It would have been nice if David Deutsch had clarified what our wills are free of?
Information and free will
by David Turell , Saturday, October 01, 2011, 22:07 (4780 days ago) @ romansh
DAVID: David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists: > > > > http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45 > > It would have been nice if David Deutsch had clarified what our wills are free of?-As I understand the problem, some studies of the brain show electrical activity before action, as if our brain or some other preprogramming tells us what to do. I don't believe a word of that thought. If I am going to move my arm I recognize that intention before I do it, and there has tio be some brain activity to cover just the intention. I have free will. I think what I want to think.
Information and free will
DAVID: David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists:-http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45-ROMANSH: It would have been nice if David Deutsch had clarified what our wills are free of.-DAVID: As I understand the problem, some studies of the brain show electrical activity before action, as if our brain or some other preprogramming tells us what to do. I don't believe a word of that thought. If I am going to move my arm I recognize that intention before I do it, and there has to be some brain activity to cover just the intention. I have free will. I think what I want to think.-I presume Romansh's comment relates to the constraints that are beyond our control, and during our discussion on the subject, we spent a lot of time on the internal constraints ... the most obvious one being the brain we're born with. David, you refer to "I" as if "I" were separate from the physical brain, and that underlies not only the problem of free will but also that of identity. It all boils down to whether we are entirely dependent on our physical cells or we have a form of energy within ourselves that is independent of them and is capable of directing them. That may also be seen as an analogy to the question of whether there is or is not a form of conscious energy that is independent of the material universe as we know it. Your old Greek buddies used to relate such analogies to microcosm and macrocosm. There are lots of routes back to your "first cause" ... and all of them lead to a T-junction!
Information and free will
by David Turell , Sunday, October 02, 2011, 21:37 (4779 days ago) @ dhw
> I presume Romansh's comment relates to the constraints that are beyond our control, and during our discussion on the subject, we spent a lot of time on the internal constraints ... the most obvious one being the brain we're born with. David, you refer to "I" as if "I" were separate from the physical brain, and that underlies not only the problem of free will but also that of identity. It all boils down to whether we are entirely dependent on our physical cells or we have a form of energy within ourselves that is independent of them and is capable of directing them. That may also be seen as an analogy to the question of whether there is or is not a form of conscious energy that is independent of the material universe as we know it. Your old Greek buddies used to relate such analogies to microcosm and macrocosm. There are lots of routes back to your "first cause" ... and all of them lead to a T-junction!-My brain is mine. I own it and I use it. It does not use me. But, I believe there is a conscious energy within the universe and without, my favorite UI. And my consciousness is part of that conscious energy. As for independent energy in my body, of course, there is: the autonomic nervous system, which runs and is the thermostat and controller for lots of automatic activities, i.e., I don't have to think to breathe, or regulate my blood pressure. -A T-junction, no. That is dead-heading into a stop sign. A Y-junction, perhaps, so one can choose the best reason as to why there is a universe at all. Or as Yogi Berra said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
Information and free will
We are once more discussing the extent to which the will and the identity are dependent on our physical body.-DAVID: My brain is mine. I own it and I use it. It does not use me. But, I believe there is a conscious energy within the universe and without, my favorite UI. And my consciousness is part of that conscious energy. As for independent energy in my body, of course, there is: the autonomic nervous system, which runs and is the thermostat and controller for lots of automatic activities, i.e., I don't have to think to breathe, or regulate my blood pressure. Materialists would, I think, argue that the physical brain runs parallel to the autonomic nervous system in that it dictates what we do and are. (It would be helpful to have a materialist argue for himself, as I'm in my usual picket-fence position.) Two fascinating articles in yesterday's Sunday Times cover various aspects of this problem. The first has the headline "Dementia risk as long-term stress shrinks the brain": "Doctors have long known that people suffering from stress over a long period experience cognitive decline, with such changes observed in people ranging from soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder to people trapped in bad jobs or marriages. It has, however, been harder to discern what is happening inside the brain to cause such decline. Now new research is offering a tentative answer, suggesting that corticosteroids ... hormones released by the body when it is stressed ... are toxic to the brain if concentrations remain high over long periods. The hippocampus, which is involved in laying down and retrieving memories, appears particularly vulnerable."-We needn't go into the details ... after all, the explanation is tentative ... but everyone knows that alcohol, drugs and illnesses can have a profound effect on a person's will and identity. Such material influences seem to run counter to the claim that will and identity are forms of energy which are independent of the physical body, and which may even survive the death of that body. -The second article concerns an actress named Marilu Henner, who can vividly recall every fact of her daily life from the age of about 12. If you name a date, she can tell you what day of the week it was, what the weather was like, what she did, and what events happened that day. The syndrome is called "hyperthymesia". She sees life on a split screen: "One side is today. On the other, half a dozen times a day, cued by a smell or a song, I am swept back to a past event, happy or sad. I cannot sleep well. Over the years, it has eaten me up."-We know that some autistic people have extraordinary gifts relating, for example, to memory or mathematics. Is Marilu Henner's heightened memory (she is not autistic) the result of some special hippocampal bonus, just as loss of memory may result from damage to the hippocampus? Is identity possible without memory, and is memory possible without the material brain? Even though I feel that I do have control, how can I know that this "I" is not simply the sum total of all the composite physical mechanisms that make up the individual self?-DAVID: A T-junction, no. That is dead-heading into a stop sign. A Y-junction, perhaps, so one can choose the best reason as to why there is a universe at all. Or as Yogi Berra said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it."-A wonderful quote! T-junction, fork in the road ... I shan't quarrel with you over images. In both cases, either you travel faithfully along one of the roads, or you stop indefinitely at the junction, enjoying both prospects and ignoring the hoots from behind you.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 03, 2011, 15:01 (4779 days ago) @ dhw
We are once more discussing the extent to which the will and the identity are dependent on our physical body.-> DAVID: A T-junction, no. That is dead-heading into a stop sign. A Y-junction, perhaps, so one can choose the best reason as to why there is a universe at all. Or as Yogi Berra said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." > > A wonderful quote! T-junction, fork in the road ... I shan't quarrel with you over images. In both cases, either you travel faithfully along one of the roads, or you stop indefinitely at the junction, enjoying both prospects and ignoring the hoots from behind you.-Without replying to your each and every example of how our brains can do different things, and even lose capacities, it is simple enough to note that brain reasoning capacity and knowledge capacities are reasonably measured by IQ tests, and those tests give a bell-shaped curve. Brains are different in every person. Thre are as different as height, body conformation, hair color, complexion, etc. Brains are plastic and can have IQ raised by maternal input in very early childhood. We are what our brains can do for us and we can enhance that capacity by exercising the brain. We are what our bodies can do for us: at 5' 8", my current height, I don't do as well in a pick-up game of basketball as the fellow who is 6'8". -None of this changes my concept that free will is free. I can go as far as my brain can take me at the Y in the road. So can everyone else.
Information and free will
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 03, 2011, 20:33 (4778 days ago) @ David Turell
You know, it seems that the brain itself acts very much like a combination hard drive and cpu in a computer. It can store for retrieval, and can even be used to store scripts that automate certain tasks. The question though, is who is using it. A computer, even though it is capable of operating in semi-autonomy, is not an autonomous machine. At some point, it requires a user. Now, just like if a sector of your hard drive is gone, or on block of RAM is bad, or perhaps your keyboard is missing a few keys, when there is some fault in the computer, the user can not use it effectively. This does not necessitate any actual fault on the user. - Neither my body nor my brain are "ME". They are not the best body and brain, but it is absolutely amazing what I can do with not-top-of-the-line equipment ;)
Information and free will
DAVID: Without replying to your each and every example of how our brains can do different things, and even lose capacities, it is simple enough to note that brain reasoning capacity and knowledge capacities are reasonably measured by IQ tests, and those tests give a bell-shaped curve. Brains are different in every person. Thre are as different as height, body conformation, hair color, complexion, etc. Brains are plastic and can have IQ raised by maternal input in very early childhood. We are what our brains can do for us and we can enhance that capacity by exercising the brain. We are what our bodies can do for us: at 5' 8", my current height, I don't do as well in a pick-up game of basketball as the fellow who is 6'8". None of this changes my concept that free will is free. I can go as far as my brain can take me at the Y in the road. So can everyone else.- My own examples illustrated the direct impact of material influences on memory, will and identity, all of which are inseparably linked together. Your examples also illustrate features of our identity which are beyond our control (including maternal input). The only hint of freedom that you have offered us is that "we can enhance that capacity by exercising the brain", but even that leaves open the question of what it is that makes us WANT to enhance its capacity, and makes us WILLING to do the work involved. The ultimate subject of this discussion is whether we have a will/mind/identity that can exist independently of the material body. Eventually it will probably lead us back to the paranormal, NDEs and OBEs, but at this stage of the argument, the evidence seems to be heavily in favour of the material explanation. If we are to consider the possibility of an identity independent of the body, we do need at least a theoretical explanation of why material causes such as alcohol, drugs, diseases and physical abnormalities can have such a profound effect on a non-material will/memory/mind. Perhaps you will allow me to lean over on your side of the fence for a moment and offer you a very speculative one: if the identity is separate from the brain, the brain must act as a receiver. When something goes wrong with my TV, I may get all kinds of garbled signals, and maybe that's what happens in the above cases. The "real" identity (whatever that is) can't get through.*** Is this a line of thought worth pursuing? It doesn't explain the source of our identity, the mechanics of consciousness, memory, emotion etc. or the changes that take place as we go through life, but nor does the material explanation. One more question: if the will and identity are immaterial, how and when do you imagine they actually come into being, in relation to the physical conception and birth of each different individual?-*** Tony's computer analogy is probably better than my TV one. Thank you.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 04, 2011, 20:00 (4777 days ago) @ dhw
> My own examples illustrated the direct impact of material influences on memory, will and identity, all of which are inseparably linked together.-Agreed-> > The ultimate subject of this discussion is whether we have a will/mind/identity that can exist independently of the material body.-No. -> One more question: if the will and identity are immaterial, how and when do you imagine they actually come into being, in relation to the physical conception and birth of each different individual?-As my immature brain made its billions and billions of connections.-I use my own experiences of myself to think about your questions, some of which are 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' type.-We each have a personality made up of 40% genetics, 40% parental influence, and 20% life experiences. Twin studies have shown the genetic part as being quite strong. We each can make memories, can study courses and learn. All these parts of us go to various areas of the brain. Memory is hippocampus and also all over, perhaps somewhat holographic. But consciousness is something weird. Where is it in the brain? It is an emergent 'whatever'. And it ties together all the other attributes I listed. Free will is something I certainly have. I can think any thought I want to think. I can do any physical action I want to do if I am capable of doing it. Now phobias are learned reactions, which certainly reduce free will. I learned as a kid I don't like beng at the bottom of the pile in football, but I have learned to control the uncomfortable reaction. So my free will took over and conquered.-Consciousness is the only unexplained phenomenon, and I think it leaves the dead brain to return to the UI. I think, I believe, I don't 'know'.
Information and free will
Dhw: The ultimate subject of this discussion is whether we have a will/mind/identity that can exist independently of the material body.-DAVID: No.-DAVID: We each can make memories, can study courses and learn. All these parts of us go to various areas of the brain. Memory is hippocampus and also all over, perhaps somewhat holographic. But consciousness is something weird. Where is it in the brain? It is an emergent 'whatever'. And it ties together all the other attributes I listed [...]-Consciousness is the only unexplained phenomenon, and I think it leaves the dead brain to return to the UI.-In which case you believe that consciousness IS independent of the material body. But how can consciousness exist without being consciousness of something? When we lose it, we become unaware of ourselves and our surroundings, and so when we have it, it manifests itself through what we are and what we perceive. If my consciousness returns to a UI without "me", i.e. without every attribute that gives me my identity (including memory, will, reason, emotion), it might as well be a nothing. Consciousness without identity is incomprehensible and inconceivable to me.-I appreciate that you are explaining your beliefs, and I'm only trying to understand them, so I hope you won't lose patience with my questions, which are certainly not meant to be of the 'how many angels...' type!
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 05, 2011, 18:11 (4776 days ago) @ dhw
> In which case you believe that consciousness IS independent of the material body. > > I appreciate that you are explaining your beliefs, and I'm only trying to understand them, -In my concept my consciousness embodies 'me' and takes me back to the UI. My consciousness include my personality, my memories, my conscious control with free will. I realize consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but here is where I bring in quantum mechanics within an without the brain. Remember quantum 'spookiness' and entwined particles (first demonstrated by Alain Aspect). Reality stops at a quantum wall of uncertainty, behind which is the UI (God).-How does all this work? God knows, but I sure don't. However, it is the only answer I can come up with to fit my theories, all of which come from a scientific look at living matter and the cosmos.-An attempt at a new book is forming in my consciousness: "A Path to God thru Science". :>()
Information and free will
by David Turell , Thursday, October 06, 2011, 14:12 (4776 days ago) @ David Turell
This discussion can go to the animal level. Here is a study teaching a tortoise to get a meal:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2011/10/05/cold-blooded-cognition-social-cognition-in-a-non-social-reptile/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20111006-Information and turtle free will!
Information and free will
DHW: The ultimate subject of this discussion is whether we have a will/mind/identity that can exist independently of the material body.-DAVID: No.-DAVID: In my concept my consciousness embodies 'me' and takes me back to the UI. My consciousness includes my personality, my memories, my conscious control with free will. In the light of the above, I hope you can now see why I argued that the free will discussion would ultimately lead to the question of an immaterial identity. Before we return to that topic, though, let me respond to your earlier comment that the personality is "made up of 40% genetics, 40% parental influence, and 20% life experiences". I shan't argue over the percentages, but I prefer the old, more general pairing of nature v. nurture (under which I would include education as well as family). How we respond to nurture will depend on our inborn nature, but neither of these are under our control. Those life experiences that are not the direct result of nature or nurture will occur by chance, which is not under our control either, and again our responses will be dictated by our nature. This suggests that we are 100% at the mercy of influences beyond our control! I certainly feel that I have free will, and I acknowledge that this feeling is essential to my own way of life, not to mention that of our society, which can only function by putting pressure on individuals to take responsibility for themselves and others. (Lack of free will would theoretically remove responsibility.) But on a philosophical level, free will is mighty hard to prove! -DAVID: I realize consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but here is where I bring in quantum mechanics within and without the brain. Remember quantum 'spookiness' and entwined particles (first demonstrated by Alain Aspect). Reality stops at a quantum wall of uncertainty, behind which is the UI (God).-How does all this work? God knows, but I sure don't. However, it is the only answer I can come up with to fit my theories, all of which come from a scientific look at living matter and the cosmos.-I do remember quantum 'spookiness' and I remember the dictum that anyone who said he understood quantum mechanics didn't understand quantum mechanics. You don't know how it works ... and of course no-one else does either. That is the territory you share with the materialist, who will argue that the brain is the seat and source of consciousness/ will/mind/identity, though he too has no idea how it works. And he may also argue that it is the only answer he can come up with to fit his theories, all of which come from a scientific look at living matter and the cosmos. Because living matter and the cosmos are material, and we do not know of any form of consciousness/identity that is not part of the material, living world. (I did say earlier that we would eventually come to the paranormal, NDEs and OBEs!) I think I have a better understanding now of your beliefs, but perhaps in the light of the above you will also have a better understanding of my own non-beliefs. -DAVID: An attempt at a new book is forming in my consciousness: "A Path to God thru Science". :>()-David, your first book was an immensely important contribution to my own grasp of many issues. Please exercise your famous free will, and write the new book before you're prevented from doing so by factors beyond your control!
Information and free will
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 06, 2011, 21:01 (4775 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: How we respond to nurture will depend on our inborn nature, but neither of these are under our control. Those life experiences that are not the direct result of nature or nurture will occur by chance, which is not under our control either, and again our responses will be dictated by our nature. This suggests that we are 100% at the mercy of influences beyond our control! -One could also argue that in most cases our own 'nature' is too vague to be counted as determinism. For example, in my own nature, I am both non-confrontational and I have an aggressive controlling streak about 10 miles wide. These two seem to be at odds with each other, and regardless of what choice I make, to fight or walk away, someone could claim that it was in my nature. So, if it is in your nature to be lazy, yet it is in your nature to be obsessive compulsive over certain things, when you obsessively work on something are you violating your lazy nature? What if you choose to work hard at something for some other reason, perhaps because it ranks high on your list of personal priorities?- I personally do not buy into either side of that debate because I see the whole thing as a false perception. What constitutes a biological personality trait? What does not?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Thursday, October 06, 2011, 23:29 (4775 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> One could also argue that in most cases our own 'nature' is too vague to be counted as determinism. For example, in my own nature, I am both non-confrontational and I have an aggressive controlling streak about 10 miles wide. These two seem to be at odds with each other, and regardless of what choice I make, to fight or walk away, someone could claim that it was in my nature. -Personalities are analyzed by psychologists and psychiatrists. The description you give of yours is that of passive-aggressive. No harm in that. I'm one of those. And that is only a small portion of a total personality description. And often the opponent has no idea he's been taken. And it is a better than beating someone to death. :>()
Information and free will
by David Turell , Friday, October 07, 2011, 15:39 (4774 days ago) @ David Turell
As dhw and I debate back and forth here is an article that suggests we have morality genes!-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/05/a-moral-gene/
Information and free will
DAVID: I think free will is easy to prove. The problem is we do not know the basis of consciousness.-But you have already agreed that your consciousness "includes my personality, my memories, my conscious control with free will". We simply do not know the basis or even the location of the will, and it cannot be separated from the rest of our personality, which you say is made up of 40% genetics, 40% parental influence, and 20% life experiences. There is therefore no way of knowing the extent to which our decisions are steered by influences beyond our control (in my terms: nature, nurture, chance).-TONY (b_m) has outlined apparently conflicting traits of his personality (e.g. non-confrontational v. aggressive). I don't think any of us would claim that our identity is clear-cut, or even that we could predict our own decisions under certain circumstances (would I be a hero or a coward if I were under attack?). That is precisely how we learn about ourselves. The free will discussion centres on whether those decisions really are free or have already been shaped by nature and/or nurture. You go on to say: "I personally do not buy into either side of that debate because I see the whole thing as a false perception. What constitutes a biological personality trait? What does not?" I would extend your question: can we ever draw clear boundaries between the influences of nature, nurture and chance? (David's latest post concerning a moral gene emphasizes the point.) I don't think we can. That is why, unlike David, I don't think we can possibly "prove" that our will is free. Nor, to be honest, do I feel any need to do so. I'm quite happy to make my decisions under what may be the illusion of free will, and I recognize that illusory or not, it is essential for my own well-being and for the smooth functioning of society. I'm therefore more interested in the interlinking question of whether our consciousness/ identity/will/memory/emotions are sourced and situated exclusively in the material body. -DAVID: I believe materialist reductionism will not explain emergent properties like consciousness. I'm not with the materialists. I believe the quantum level of reality is in charge in those issues.-Ah, that is the big question!-My apologies, David, concerning the inaccurate bibliography. I have read and greatly admired your Government by Political Spin, and will now focus my will on influencing your will to write a THIRD book.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Saturday, October 08, 2011, 15:04 (4774 days ago) @ dhw
This study looks at brain scans of admitted pedophiles, normal homosexuals and heterosexuals. The purpose of the study is to try and identify pedophiles. But does it? Note the sentence: is this sexual attraction or guilt reaction in the summary of the article?:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-brain-scans-pedophiles.html
Information and free will
by David Turell , Saturday, October 08, 2011, 18:23 (4773 days ago) @ David Turell
To continue this discussion further, please read the following book review of, "The Folly of Fools'. To my mind the reviewer is the biggest fool. The brain does have special compartments,i.e., the motor strips, the sensory strips, the former which controls movement and the latter sensations. Have damage from a stroke and there are areas that will not move and others that will not feel. But there are many areas that do not have exact controls. There are all sorts of personalities that pop out of the frontal lobes as one example. We can tap our personalities, the moral judgments, the intuitive and counterintuative thoughts at will. Wwe are not required to have different thought modules fight each other.-This is the problem when lay people try to understand the neurology of brain scans. And why I've been harping on the idiocy of overinterpretation.-Read with jaundiced eye:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608801724343980.html?KEYWORDS=Matt+Ridley
Information and free will
DAVID: To continue this discussion further, please read the following book review of, "The Folly of Fools'. To my mind the reviewer is the biggest fool. The brain does have special compartments,i.e., the motor strips, the sensory strips, the former which controls movement and the latter sensations. Have damage from a stroke and there are areas that will not move and others that will not feel. But there are many areas that do not have exact controls. There are all sorts of personalities that pop out of the frontal lobes as one example. We can tap our personalities, the moral judgments, the intuitive and counterintuative thoughts at will. Wwe are not required to have different thought modules fight each other.-This is the problem when lay people try to understand the neurology of brain scans. And why I've been harping on the idiocy of overinterpretation. Read with jaundiced eye:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608801724343980.html?KEYWORDS...-I have read it twice with both jaundiced eyes, but still can't follow the argument. This is the field of evolutionary psychology, so when the author talks of "specialized mental circuits" is he referring to "the neurology of brain scans" or to mental processes? Are the "modules" physical or psychological? He says: "...there's no such thing as a unified self, just a collection of modules", so does he mean different facets of the personality are in conflict or different sections of the physical brain? If it's the latter, I can't believe neurologists have pin-pointed these "modules" with such precision, and if it's the former, what's new? Either way, I don't think it gets us much further!
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 10, 2011, 01:30 (4772 days ago) @ dhw
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608801724343980.html?KEYWORDS... > I have read it twice with both jaundiced eyes, but still can't follow the argument. This is the field of evolutionary psychology, so when the author talks of "specialized mental circuits" is he referring to "the neurology of brain scans" or to mental processes? Are the "modules" physical or psychological? He says: "...there's no such thing as a unified self, just a collection of modules", so does he mean different facets of the personality are in conflict or different sections of the physical brain? If it's the latter, I can't believe neurologists have pin-pointed these "modules" with such precision, and if it's the former, what's new? Either way, I don't think it gets us much further!-Neither can I.Idiots get published and the public fawns over scientific jibberish. However the following early concepts re quantum theory and the brain does fit what I know about acupuncture and chinese medicine. Quanta, brain, consciousness, all gov together somehow:-http://www.comtecmed.com/cony/2011/Uploads/assets/schwartz_ssnnsession.pdf-This describes a course he gives. He has visited China. He wrote the book: You are not your brain.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Thursday, October 06, 2011, 21:12 (4775 days ago) @ dhw
> In the light of the above, I hope you can now see why I argued that the free will discussion would ultimately lead to the question of an immaterial identity. But on a philosophical level, free will is mighty hard to prove! -I don't know why you say that. I am an innocent wandering in the philosophical woods. I think free will is easy to prove. The problem is we do not know the basis of consciousness. > > I do remember quantum 'spookiness' and I remember the dictum that anyone who said he understood quantum mechanics didn't understand quantum mechanics. You don't know how it works ... and of course no-one else does either. That is the territory you share with the materialist, who will argue that the brain is the seat and source of consciousness/ will/mind/identity, though he too has no idea how it works. And he may also argue that it is the only answer he can come up with to fit his theories, all of which come from a scientific look at living matter and the cosmos. Because living matter and the cosmos are material, and we do not know of any form of consciousness/identity that is not part of the material, living world.-I believe materialist reductionism will not explain emergent properties like consciousness. I'm not with the materialists. I believe the quantum level of reality is in charge in those issues. > > DAVID: An attempt at a new book is forming in my consciousness: "A Path to God thru Science". :>() > > David, your first book was an immensely important contribution to my own grasp of many issues. Please exercise your famous free will, and write the new book before you're prevented from doing so by factors beyond your control!-That was my second book. My first book is about American politics, a libertarian's view of the stupidity in Washington.
Information and free will
by romansh , Sunday, October 09, 2011, 22:43 (4772 days ago) @ dhw
I presume Romansh's comment relates to the constraints that are beyond our control, and during our discussion on the subject, we spent a lot of time on the internal constraints ... the most obvious one being the brain we're born with. David, you refer to "I" as if "I" were separate from the physical brain, and that underlies not only the problem of free will but also that of identity. It all boils down to whether we are entirely dependent on our physical cells or we have a form of energy within ourselves that is independent of them and is capable of directing them. That may also be seen as an analogy to the question of whether there is or is not a form of conscious energy that is independent of the material universe as we know it. Your old Greek buddies used to relate such analogies to microcosm and macrocosm. There are lots of routes back to your "first cause" ... and all of them lead to a T-junction!-David - it's not just constraints beyond our control. Brains, DNA genetics etc. It's about the information we receive and the universe we are born into.-I would like to know when we discuss free will what exactly are we free from.-rom
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 10, 2011, 01:39 (4772 days ago) @ romansh
> David - it's not just constraints beyond our control. Brains, DNA genetics etc. It's about the information we receive and the universe we are born into. > > I would like to know when we discuss free will what exactly are we free from. > > rom-The brain is very plastic. It can grow new connections in every direction from the neurons that affect memory, ideation, knowledge,etc. Nothing can control what I want my brain to do for me. I can analyze any information I receive and reach my own conclusions. I know that I am not free from my parent's influence on me as a child. From recent research I know that my Mother had a tremendous influence on my intelligence. Mother who read to their children and stimulate them to learn increases the child's IQ. Tell me what we are not free from?!
Information and free will
by romansh , Monday, October 10, 2011, 19:38 (4771 days ago) @ David Turell
Tell me what we are not free from?!
I don't think we (or our wills) are free from anything.
ie we are not free of the universe, though our immediate environments have a greater influence than some distant star say.
So in this sense free will is a nonsense concept.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 10, 2011, 21:54 (4771 days ago) @ romansh
Tell me what we are not free from?!
I don't think we (or our wills) are free from anything.
ie we are not free of the universe, though our immediate environments have a greater influence than some distant star say.So in this sense free will is a nonsense concept.
What does the local universe do to my brain to control it?
Information and free will
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 05:04 (4771 days ago) @ David Turell
Raymond Tallis, brain researcher, and why we can't imply too much from scanning and so forth:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/few-opponents-will-debate-atheist-neu...
Information and free will
by romansh , Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 03:43 (4770 days ago) @ David Turell
What does the local universe do to my brain to control it?
Embeds genes memes etc.
Your computer screen sends photons to your eyes. Sometimes, patterns of those photons cause your blood pressure to rise (I suspect; extrapolating from my personal point of existence).
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 05:34 (4770 days ago) @ romansh
What does the local universe do to my brain to control it?
Embeds genes memes etc.Your computer screen sends photons to your eyes. Sometimes, patterns of those photons cause your blood pressure to rise (I suspect; extrapolating from my personal point of existence).
I don't think the universe as a whole or in a very small part has much to do with my genes. They are fixed except as they are impinged upon by epigenetic effects,which I believe are mainly local, such as my mother's input in my childhood, or going to Medical school which is a major local challenge.Memes are Dawkin's garbage. I admit there are many extraneous influences, but I think clear thinking and careful analysis can sort out most of them and lead a person to a free will choice.
Information and free will
by romansh , Friday, October 14, 2011, 05:05 (4768 days ago) @ David Turell
I don't think the universe as a whole or in a very small part has much to do with my genes.
I think you'd be terribly wrong.
They are fixed except as they are impinged upon by epigenetic effects,which I believe are mainly local, such as my mother's input in my childhood, or going to Medical school which is a major local challenge.
I suspect your mother is part of the environment, and if your ancestors' genes were not shaped by their environment, then you have a very different understanding of evolution to mine.
Memes are Dawkin's garbage. I admit there are many extraneous influences, but I think clear thinking and careful analysis can sort out most of them and lead a person to a free will choice.
Beg to differ regarding your garbage comment. Again free from what?
Independent of thermodynamics?
Independent of kinetics?
Our are brains somehow not described by basic chemistry? How can our 'will' be free from being described by the Law of Mass Action?
Information and free will
by David Turell , Saturday, October 15, 2011, 01:57 (4767 days ago) @ romansh
Our are brains somehow not described by basic chemistry? How can our 'will' be free from being described by the Law of Mass Action?
I don't follow your reasoning at all. Yes we are stardust, a la Fred Hoyle, but brain chemistry is not basic chemistry. It is biochemistry which creates ion surges down axons to multiple synapses mediated by acetylcholine. How nerve cells decided to appear is a complete puzzle to the Darwinists. Ask Dawkins. He will have no idea. But then neither do I. The brain is very plastic and can even develop new neurons and axon connections at my tender age. My consciousness is an outgrowth of that amazing computer. But computers do not have consciousness. My show poodle is conscious, but he is not aware that he is aware. Because my consciousness is an emergent property of my brain it is free to do what it wants. It creates my personality pretty much at my direction. So, yes, I am the product of the physical and chemical laws of the universe, but I have become independent of them in my view. We all can choose to fly in a plane and defy gravity for the moment.
By the way, I agree with your approach to discussion by website. Short idea bites are easier to handle than volumes of whatever. my eyes start to glaze over. :>))
We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. And also about Susan Blackmore. I've carefully read her book, 'Dying to Live' and her handling and criticism of physicans' books on Near to Death episodes (especially the medical physiologic content) is amateurish and totally incorrect.. I tore her book apart in my book,Chapter 5. I admit her Zen buddhist approach to consciousness is way beyond my zone of knowledge. I can't comment on the site you sent us to.
Information and free will
by romansh , Saturday, October 22, 2011, 21:25 (4759 days ago) @ David Turell
Our are brains somehow not described by basic chemistry? How can our 'will' be free from being described by the Law of Mass Action?
I don't follow your reasoning at all. Yes we are stardust, a la Fred Hoyle, but brain chemistry is not basic chemistry. It is biochemistry which creates ion surges down axons to multiple synapses mediated by acetylcholine. How nerve cells decided to appear is a complete puzzle to the Darwinists. Ask Dawkins. He will have no idea. But then neither do I. The brain is very plastic and can even develop new neurons and axon connections at my tender age. My consciousness is an outgrowth of that amazing computer. But computers do not have consciousness. My show poodle is conscious, but he is not aware that he is aware. Because my consciousness is an emergent property of my brain it is free to do what it wants. It creates my personality pretty much at my direction. So, yes, I am the product of the physical and chemical laws of the universe, but I have become independent of them in my view. We all can choose to fly in a plane and defy gravity for the moment.
Frankly, David I have great distrust of the concept of (or appeal to) emergence. While there are many flavours of emergence, wiki gives two flavours weak and strong, Weak emergence is simply the recognition that reductionism is not worth the effort of an "emergent" phenomenon or it is beyond our current abilities. This is my interpretation, 
Whereas strong emergence is an appeal to magic. Which I suppose this is what you are suggesting.
At the end of the day you have not addressed my point. The plasticity etc that you describe are they not ultimately described one atom, ion and electron at a time by chemistry?
We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. And also about Susan Blackmore. I've carefully read her book, 'Dying to Live' and her handling and criticism of physicans' books on Near to Death episodes (especially the medical physiologic content) is amateurish and totally incorrect.. I tore her book apart in my book,Chapter 5. I admit her Zen buddhist approach to consciousness is way beyond my zone of knowledge. I can't comment on the site you sent us to.
I was simply asking whether you agreed with her experience when she asks Am I conscious now? I don't expect you to start labelling the teapot or anything.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Saturday, October 22, 2011, 21:43 (4759 days ago) @ romansh
Whereas strong emergence is an appeal to magic. Which I suppose this is what you are suggesting.
I guess my thoughts about emergence approach magic in your view
At the end of the day you have not addressed my point. The plasticity etc that you describe are they not ultimately described one atom, ion and electron at a time by chemistry?
No. I think you need a complex of neurons to create the plasticity. you are looking for too much reduction.
I can't comment on the site you sent us to.I was simply asking whether you agreed with her experience when she asks Am I conscious now? I don't expect you to start labelling the teapot or anything.
I don't understand her. Her out of the body experience was from marijuana. She admits to that. Now she is a total skeptic. From her book I am very prejudiced.
From David Brooks a column with a fascinating view of the way the mind works and free will:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/brooks-who-you-are.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2011, 20:22 (4758 days ago) @ David Turell
From David Brooks a column with a fascinating view of the way the mind works and free will:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/opinion/brooks-who-you-are.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq...
Here is another review of the work by Kahneman and Tversky. We are influenced by everything in our past, but we make our own judgments, erronous as they may be by our own free will.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576639032103005502.html?KEYWORDS...
Information and free will
by romansh , Sunday, October 23, 2011, 23:25 (4758 days ago) @ David Turell
I don't understand her. Her out of the body experience was from marijuana. She admits to that. Now she is a total skeptic. From her book I am very prejudiced.
What on earth are you discussing David?
There is no mention of out of body experiences or marijuana, mainly because that is not the subject of article.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 24, 2011, 01:00 (4758 days ago) @ romansh
I don't understand her. Her out of the body experience was from marijuana. She admits to that. Now she is a total skeptic. From her book I am very prejudiced.
What on earth are you discussing David?
There is no mention of out of body experiences or marijuana, mainly because that is not the subject of article.
I know that and I am sorry to confuse you. The marijuana and out of the body experience she had is in her book, 'Dying to Live'.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 15:13 (4757 days ago) @ David Turell
Emotions and how they affect to body: the brain's memory reaction to those emotions. We all recognize that very upsetting events will tend to fade. Does all this affect free will?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/24/brain_chemistry_emotional_...
Information and free will
DAVID: Emotions and how they affect the body: the brain's memory reaction to those emotions. We all recognize that very upsetting events will tend to fade. Does all this affect free will?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/24/brain_chemistry_emotional_...
Once again, my thanks to David for drawing our attention to this rather touching article. I’d say it has even wider implications than free will, since it graphically illustrates the general problems facing the materialist view of the brain. We know that emotions affect the brain and body. They may trigger chemical reactions – some harmful, some beneficial – but these processes are a result and not a cause. So what part of the self actually feels the emotions that cause the material reactions? Christie Wilcox writes: “Where music comes from, or even why we like and create music, is still a mystery.†The same can be said of all our creative, aesthetic and emotional experiences. Does one part of the brain affect other parts (materialist view), or is there something immaterial and independent of the brain that affects it?
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 22:07 (4755 days ago) @ dhw1
Christie Wilcox writes: “Where music comes from, or even why we like and create music, is still a mystery.†The same can be said of all our creative, aesthetic and emotional experiences. Does one part of the brain affect other parts (materialist view), or is there something immaterial and independent of the brain that affects it?
What about consciousness. We have discussed it enough times. I still think it is an emergent quantum property of the brain. God hides behind the wall of quantum uncertainty and is joined to our consciousness. I'm sure he planned it this way.
God by definition is the consciousness of the universal intelligence.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 22:23 (4755 days ago) @ David Turell
Christie Wilcox writes: “Where music comes from, or even why we like and create music, is still a mystery.†The same can be said of all our creative, aesthetic and emotional experiences. Does one part of the brain affect other parts (materialist view), or is there something immaterial and independent of the brain that affects it?
What about consciousness. We have discussed it enough times. I still think it is an emergent quantum property of the brain. God hides behind the wall of quantum uncertainty and is joined to our consciousness. I'm sure he planned it this way.
God by definition is the consciousness of the universal intelligence.
Here is another view of brain activity, not quite under our wakeful control:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sparks-in-your-sleep&WT.mc_id=SA_C...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, October 31, 2011, 14:36 (4751 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is another view of brain activity, not quite under our wakeful control:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sparks-in-your-sleep&WT.mc_id=SA_C...
SciAm at it again. Here the blog discusses transposons changing DNA in reproducing neurons. Is it helping memory as proposed, causing disease, or affecting free will?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ductile-helix-jumping&WT.mc_id=SA_...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 02, 2011, 14:27 (4749 days ago) @ David Turell
From Sciam, does your sweat leave behind telltale evidence of past emotions? Or Rottweiler used to give out a 'jungle-like' smell when he wanted to attack (under our control of course).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=believing-in-bad-vibes&page=2
Information and free will
by BBella , Thursday, October 27, 2011, 07:12 (4755 days ago) @ dhw1
So what part of the self actually feels the emotions that cause the material reactions?
It seems to me, the part of the self that feels emotions IS the body not the brain, altho the brain does detect the emotion/feeling in the body. If we think a fearful, angry or joyful thought, the body reacts to the image in our mind and "feels" the emotin. If we hear music or see something outside us that brings us pleasant feelings, it is in the body that feels the feelings/emotions. As I said, I don't think the mental brain feels, it just detects feeling when the material body reacts with emotion. A thought can "bring" us anguish or pain, but unless our body feels it, it's not really anguish or pain.
Christie Wilcox writes: “Where music comes from, or even why we like and create music, is still a mystery.†The same can be said of all our creative, aesthetic and emotional experiences. Does one part of the brain affect other parts (materialist view), or is there something immaterial and independent of the brain that affects it?
I think the love of music, aesthetics and creativity comes with the effects we experience, in a physical sense, from their effects on the material body. The body is like a balloon full of water, and when vibrations pass thru it, either from our thoughts of an image or from something outside us we see or hear, we experience vibration within the body. So what we usually have an affinity for is what "moves us" (in a good sense). If what moves us brings negative images to our brain we tend to avoid it or avoid bring up the images to our mind.
Not sure if this addresses the question...I may be missing the point here.
Consciousness and emotion
Dhw: So what part of the self actually feels the emotions that cause the material reactions?
BBella: It seems to me, the part of the self that feels emotions IS the body not the brain, altho the brain does detect the emotion/feeling in the body.
You later talk of vibrations in the body, which I can easily understand in relation to music, and to other aesthetic effects caused by an external physical or sensual impression. But many of our emotions are inextricably bound to the mental processing of information that is NOT connected with such impressions. Take grief as an example. The death of someone you love is registered by your conscious mind. This may send out distress signals to the body, and the chemical processes may even kill you, but I don’t see how the body can be seen as the source of our feeling. The awareness of loss is the cause of the pain, and the accompanying “heartache†or whatever you call it would not occur if the thoughts themselves didn’t torment us. In other words, our prime suffering is mental, not physical. Of course, as David says, all of this is tied to the mystery of consciousness, and just as we ask how material cells can be aware of themselves, I’m asking how material cells can experience immaterial feelings.
Consciousness and emotion
by BBella , Friday, October 28, 2011, 05:40 (4754 days ago) @ dhw1
edited by unknown, Friday, October 28, 2011, 05:46
Dhw: So what part of the self actually feels the emotions that cause the material reactions?
BBella: It seems to me, the part of the self that feels emotions IS the body not the brain, altho the brain does detect the emotion/feeling in the body.
You later talk of vibrations in the body, which I can easily understand in relation to music, and to other aesthetic effects caused by an external physical or sensual impression. But many of our emotions are inextricably bound to the mental processing of information that is NOT connected with such impressions. Take grief as an example. The death of someone you love is registered by your conscious mind. This may send out distress signals to the body, and the chemical processes may even kill you, but I don’t see how the body can be seen as the source of our feeling.
The body is not the source/cause of our feeling but is the way we "feel" emotion. What we observe within the mind or outside of it (ie the memory of the loss of a loved one, music, etc)is the source but the "feeling" is felt by the body. I'm confused how we "feel" emotion without a body to feel it? Our mind can conceive of it and imagine it...but can it actually "feel" it without a body?
The awareness of loss is the cause of the pain,
Yes, it is the "cause" of pain but it's the body that "feels" the pain by "feeling" the physical part of emotion. You asked "what part of the self actually feels the emotion?" I would think it is the body.
and the accompanying “heartache†or whatever you call it would not occur if the thoughts themselves didn’t torment us.
Right. Mental anguish, aesthetics, etc do cause the body's physical reaction. It's cause and effect. The cause is thinking or imagining something or seeing/hearing something that then gives the effect of feeling the emotion it gives us within the body.
In other words, our prime suffering is mental, not physical.
I can't see how this is. Our prime suffering, as I think of it, is from what happens to us in the physical sense. Lets say we got a pleasant feeling every time we thought of the loss of a loved one as we do when we hear good music...I would think in no time we would have no mental anguish over our loss. It is the pain we feel, in a physical sense, of the loss of a loved one, abuse, etc that helps continue the emotional feeling of pain connected to the situation. If we think of these terrible things it brings back the physical pain of the loss or abuse, etc, so in the end, where we feel the pain is in the body. Maybe I'm just missing the boat here?
Of course, as David says, all of this is tied to the mystery of consciousness, and just as we ask how material cells can be aware of themselves, I’m asking how material cells can experience immaterial feelings.(?)
I'm completely lost at your question above. Can you rephrase it perhaps?
bb
Information and free will
ROMANSH: David - it's not just constraints beyond our control. Brains, DNA genetics etc. It's about the information we receive and the universe we are born into.I would like to know when we discuss free will what exactly are we free from.
DAVID: The brain is very plastic. It can grow new connections in every direction from the neurons that affect memory, ideation, knowledge,etc. Nothing can control what I want my brain to do for me. I can analyze any information I receive and reach my own conclusions. I know that I am not free from my parent's influence on me as a child. From recent research I know that my Mother had a tremendous influence on my intelligence. Mothers who read to their children and stimulate them to learn increase the child's IQ. Tell me what we are not free from?!
After a great deal of discussion, I thought we had agreed on the following definition of free will:
“an entity’s conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints.†The constraints are imposed by:
1) Nature and/or the situation
2) Factors connected with the decision-making process itself (e.g. our own genetic make-up)
To genetic make-up we can add parental influence, education, the effects of chance through accidents, encounters, illnesses etc. All of these are beyond our control, and for much of the time we are not even aware of their influence. However, like you, I feel that I am in control, and I’m inclined to think that it’s a pointless exercise to dig into all the circumstances that might invalidate my feeling. If we do have free will, there is generally no way we can draw clear borderlines between conscious control and unconscious influences, and in any case individuals and societies can only function if they assume it exists.
In response to Romansh, I would say that if we do have free will, we are free from at least some of those unknown quantities that make up (2). In other words, our genetic make-up and all the other influences do not have total control over our decision-making ability, but there is a mechanism that remains independent of them. This is something we cannot know until we pin-point the nature and source of consciousness/will/identity – which we may never be able to do.
With regard to the rest of your post, obviously no decision can be free from the information we receive (there would be nothing to decide if we didn’t have some sort of information), and since the universe we are born into comprises everything, you could argue that no decision can be free from the universe. That’s all too woolly for me. Perhaps you could tell us (a) if you still accept the above definition (though I think you objected for some reason to the inclusion of “consciousâ€), and (b) exactly what sort of information and what aspects of the universe you’re referring to, if they’re not covered by the constraints I’ve listed.
Information and free will
by romansh , Monday, October 10, 2011, 20:11 (4771 days ago) @ dhw
With regard to the rest of your post, obviously no decision can be free from the information we receive (there would be nothing to decide if we didn’t have some sort of information), and since the universe we are born into comprises everything, you could argue that no decision can be free from the universe.
One would have thought so. The libertarian tends to deny or think cause and effect irrelevant. The compatibilist (I would argue) redefines free will somehow.
So when we refer to free will, how and what are we free from? As a free will skeptic, I don't see much. The way the debate is shaping up there seems to be a homunculus brewing in our brains.
That’s all too woolly for me. Perhaps you could tell us (a) if you still accept the above definition (though I think you objected for some reason to the inclusion of “consciousâ€), and (b) exactly what sort of information and what aspects of the universe you’re referring to, if they’re not covered by the constraints I’ve listed.
a) I never agreed with the definition.
Mainly because it includes consciousness as prerequisite. This is a poorly understood concept which requires a fair amount of handwaving. If we do not have free will then at the very least things like consciousness, the self (I), morality and life are not quite what they seem.
I agree far flung parts of the universe have negligible impact on us (at this moment). But if those far flung parts of the universe never existed, then the universe would very likely unfolded in a slightly different manner to where we are today.
b)Information in all its forms. Photons striking our retinas, modulated air pressure striking our ear drums, chemicals reacting with in our noses and mouths, mechanical energy and temperature changes on our skin, and inputs from our senses of acceleration and orientation. Plus the information stored in our genetic code.
Information and free will
A diligent search has uncovered Romansh’s early definition of free will as: “the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.†Since the universe comprises everything, this defines free will out of existence. My own definition is “an entity’s conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints†(the constraints being Nature and/or the situation, and factors connected with the decision-making process itself, e.g. our genetic make-up).
.
ROMANSH: I never agreed with the definition. Mainly because it includes consciousness as prerequisite. This is a poorly understood concept which requires a fair amount of handwaving. If we do not have free will then at the very least things like consciousness, the self (I), morality and life are not quite what they seem.
Even your own definition involves making choices, so how can you do that without being aware of the items of information between which you are choosing? Are we only able to act when we sleepwalk? By consciousness, I mean awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environment. I agree with you that if we do not have free will, consciousness, the self etc. are not what they seem (because they seem to constitute elements of an identity over which we think we have a degree of control). But how does that invalidate the concept? Maybe consciousness IS what it seems!
You ask: “So when we refer to free will, how and what are we free from? As a free will skeptic, I don't see much. The way the debate is shaping up there seems to be a homunculus brewing in our brains.â€
Consciousness is indeed “a poorly understood conceptâ€, and nobody knows how it works. Exactly the same applies to the will. As for “what are we free from?†my answer is: from constraints other than those that are beyond our control (see below). All we know is that an element of our consciousness is able to examine information and make decisions in accordance with our conscious interpretation of that information. That element is a part of our overall identity. From here, allowing for the unavoidable Nature/situation constraints, you can follow two lines of argument: 1) this element can never be free from influences beyond its control (genetic, educational, parental etc.) so there is no free will; or 2) these influences help to fashion the identity of which the will is a part. The identity is what you’ve ironically called the “homunculus†in the brain, and it’s the sum total of our genetic make-up and all the influences and experiences we’ve been subject to. The will is therefore able to make its decisions in accordance with the current state of the “Iâ€. I am what I am, and there are no constraints apart from those of Nature and/or the situation. That is what constitutes my/the will's freedom. However, all this is far too general. The degree of freedom (if we have it) will depend on the nature of the situation that requires a decision. I will offer you an example at the end.
ROMANSH: I agree far flung parts of the universe have negligible impact on us (at this moment). But if those far flung parts of the universe never existed, then the universe would very likely unfolded in a slightly different manner to where we are today.
You might as well say that if I was not as I am, I would be different. My decision-making ability depends on the situation as it is, on Nature as it is, on the universe as it is. But within those unalterable constraints, I AM as I am, and the second line of argument still applies: my decisions depend on me.
ROMANSH: b) Information in all its forms. Photons striking our retinas, modulated air pressure striking our ear drums, chemicals reacting with in our noses and mouths, mechanical energy and temperature changes on our skin, and inputs from our senses of acceleration and orientation. Plus the information stored in our genetic code.
No doubt some decisions will depend on some of this information. Even with my second line of argument, I wouldn’t like to draw clear borderlines, because each situation will be different. So here is a concrete example, in which none of the above seem likely to influence my decision. The choice is between a must-see film and a vital cricket match on TV. My wife dislikes cricket, but she generously says it’s up to me...So the homunculus consciously weighs up the pleasure (and importance) of the cricket against the pleasure (and importance) of pleasing my wife...Now tell me (a) why consciousness is not integral to the process, and (b) given this information (the constraints of the situation), in what way will my decision be forced on me by influences beyond my control?
Information and free will
by romansh , Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 03:37 (4770 days ago) @ dhw
A diligent search has uncovered Romansh’s early definition of free will as: “the ability to act on or make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.†Since the universe comprises everything, this defines free will out of existence. My own definition is “an entity’s conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints†(the constraints being Nature and/or the situation, and factors connected with the decision-making process itself, e.g. our genetic make-up).
I am aware and agree my definition might be too all encompassing, that does not mean it is invalid or does it?
Your definition needs work I think, what does nature imply - genetics, bacteria, chemistry, England's pastures green?
Even your own definition involves making choices, so how can you do that without being aware of the items of information between which you are choosing? Are we only able to act when we sleepwalk? By consciousness, I mean awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environment. I agree with you that if we do not have free will, consciousness, the self etc. are not what they seem (because they seem to constitute elements of an identity over which we think we have a degree of control). But how does that invalidate the concept? Maybe consciousness IS what it seems.
My computer running a spreadsheet makes choices all the time, depending on the keyboard inputs. You might say it is not conscious; while I might have some sympathy for this point of view, I do ask is not the computer, in some rudimentary way, aware of the key strokes and its memory registers?
Consciousness is indeed “a poorly understood conceptâ€, and nobody knows how it works. Exactly the same applies to the will. As for “what are we free from?†my answer is: from constraints other than those that are beyond our control (see below). All we know is that an element of our consciousness is able to examine information and make decisions in accordance with our conscious interpretation of that information. That element is a part of our overall identity. From here, allowing for the unavoidable Nature/situation constraints, you can follow two lines of argument: 1) this element can never be free from influences beyond its control (genetic, educational, parental etc.) so there is no free will; or 2) these influences help to fashion the identity of which the will is a part. The identity is what you’ve ironically called the “homunculus†in the brain, and it’s the sum total of our genetic make-up and all the influences and experiences we’ve been subject to. The will is therefore able to make its decisions in accordance with the current state of the “Iâ€. I am what I am, and there are no constraints apart from those of Nature and/or the situation. That is what constitutes my/the will's freedom. However, all this is far too general. The degree of freedom (if we have it) will depend on the nature of the situation that requires a decision. I will offer you an example at the end.
Beyond our control this is eactly what we are trying ascertain whether we do control (our poorly understood) wills. So for me your definition sort of reduces to will that is free except what they are not free from.
Excuse the position of the prepositions.
You might as well say that if I was not as I am, I would be different. My decision-making ability depends on the situation as it is, on Nature as it is, on the universe as it is. But within those unalterable constraints, I AM as I am, and the second line of argument still applies: my decisions depend on me.
So you are agreeing that we are caused by the universe?
No doubt some decisions will depend on some of this information. Even with my second line of argument, I wouldn’t like to draw clear borderlines, because each situation will be different. So here is a concrete example, in which none of the above seem likely to influence my decision. The choice is between a must-see film and a vital cricket match on TV. My wife dislikes cricket, but she generously says it’s up to me...So the homunculus consciously weighs up the pleasure (and importance) of the cricket against the pleasure (and importance) of pleasing my wife...Now tell me (a) why consciousness is not integral to the process, and (b) given this information (the constraints of the situation), in what way will my decision be forced on me by influences beyond my control?
Again I would argue it is incumbent on those arguing for free will to show the wills and and hence choices are independent of said information. Appealing to quatum indeterminism won't cut it for me either as an argument.
The homunculus argument (even when expressed as a soul) is the most difficult to defend. The homunculus needs to get its information from somewhere and it too gets its information from its immediate environment and therefore is dependent. This is not freedom in anyway.
The only way to get "free" will is to redefine it so that it is compatible somehow. in my opion
Information and free will
I defined “free will†as “an entity’s conscious ability to control its decision-making process within given constraints†(the constraints being Nature and/or the situation, and factors connected with the decision-making process itself, e.g. our genetic make-up).
ROMANSH: Your definition needs work I think, what does nature imply – genetics, bacteria, chemistry, England’s pastures green?
Originally your objection was to the prerequisite of consciousness, so I’m pleased to see you’ve now shifted your ground. No matter how much freedom I have, I cannot make decisions that will go against the constraints of Nature, which includes my own nature as it is now: I can’t decide to fly, jump fifty metres, become dictator of the world, or eat a thousand bars of chocolate at one go. None of these “decisions†are within the compass of my current identity, and so they represent given constraints. Similarly with situation: if I’m locked up in prison I can’t decide to go shopping. I can, however, decide whether to sing “Please Release Me†or “Baby, It’s Cold Outsideâ€.
ROMANSH: My computer running a spreadsheet makes choices all the time, depending on the keyboard inputs. […] I do ask is not the computer, in some rudimentary way, aware of the key strokes and its memory registers?
I explained what I meant by consciousness: “awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environment.†Do you disagree with this definition? I like your cautious “rudimentaryâ€, but if you think your computer fulfils the conditions of my definition of consciousness, then you believe it’s conscious, and if you think it’s able consciously to control its decision-making process within given constraints, then you believe your computer has free will. I don’t.
ROMANSH: Beyond our control this is eactly what we are trying ascertain whether we do control (our poorly understood) wills. So for me your definition sort of reduces to will that is free except what they are not free from.
That is indeed what it boils down to. Even a believer in free will won’t claim freedom to do absolutely anything, so we have to mention unavoidable constraints. But I think you’re confusing the definition with the argument. The definition cannot say whether we do or don’t have control. That is the subject of the argument. I’ve offered you two opposing views – allowing for the given Nature/situation constraints – based on my definition: 1) the decision-making process itself depends on uncontrollable factors such as our genetic make-up, upbringing etc., so we do not have free will; or 2) the factors governing the decision-making process are what constitute our personal identity, and so it is “I†(my personal identity) who make the decision. In other words, the choice will depend on what I am and not on the factors that made me what I am. Therefore “I†do have free will – though the degree will depend on the situation. In case you complain that this means my will is dependent on me, let me point out that my will IS me, along with my consciousness, emotions, imagination, memory etc.
ROMANSH: So you are agreeing that we are caused by the universe?
If by that you mean we wouldn’t be here if the universe wasn’t here, yes of course I agree. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not “free†to choose which TV programme to watch. I gave you a concrete example, in which I had to choose between my own preference and my wife’s, and I asked you two questions: a) why consciousness was not integral to the decision-making process, and b) given this information, in what way my decision would be forced on me by influences beyond my control.
ROMANSH: Again I would argue it is incumbent on those arguing for free will to show the wills and hence choices are independent of said information.
This doesn’t answer my questions, and I don’t understand your reply. Yes, the choices are dependent on the information. The information is what constitutes the choices between which we must decide by using our will! The whole point is whether, when we have a choice, we are free or not to decide what choice to make.
ROMANSH: Appealing to quatum indeterminism won’t cut it for me either as an argument.
Sorry, but I don’t understand this comment.
ROMANSH: The homunculus argument (even when expressed as a soul) is the most difficult to defend. The homunculus needs to get its information from somewhere and it too gets its information from its immediate environment and therefore is dependent. This is not freedom in anyway.
“I†(identity, homunculus, whatever) am indeed dependent on the information I get from the environment. But if I have free will, it relates to my conscious ability to use that information in order to make my decision. Your argument here boils down to saying if we didn’t have a choice between x and y, we wouldn’t have the ability to choose between x and y. X and y are the given constraints (here, the situation), and free will is the conscious ability to make the choice between them.
ROMANSH: The only way to get “free†will is to redefine it so that it is compatible somehow.
The definition of “free will†has to be neutral. Then we can discuss whether we do or do not have it.
Information and free will
by romansh , Friday, October 14, 2011, 05:27 (4768 days ago) @ dhw
Originally your objection was to the prerequisite of consciousness, so I’m pleased to see you’ve now shifted your ground.
Not at all, I still think it is an unnecessary prerequisite.
No matter how much freedom I have, I cannot make decisions that will go against the constraints of Nature, which includes my own nature as it is now: I can’t decide to fly, jump fifty metres, become dictator of the world, or eat a thousand bars of chocolate at one go. None of these “decisions†are within the compass of my current identity, and so they represent given constraints. Similarly with situation: if I’m locked up in prison I can’t decide to go shopping. I can, however, decide whether to sing “Please Release Me†or “Baby, It’s Cold Outsideâ€.
I'll ask the same question I tried to ask David just. Are our thoughts a reflection of the chemistry going on in our brains? Some seem to think it is the reverse. Some might argue that certain neural pathways get strengthened because of our thoughts. But are not our thoughts a product of the brain's on-going chemistry?
So which came first the thought or the brain chemistry?
I explained what I meant by consciousness: “awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environment.†Do you disagree with this definition? I like your cautious “rudimentaryâ€, but if you think your computer fulfils the conditions of my definition of consciousness, then you believe it’s conscious, and if you think it’s able consciously to control its decision-making process within given constraints, then you believe your computer has free will. I don’t.
Fair enough, but I don't think a computer makes any free choices or that it's will is free. Also your argument works both ways. The computer is self aware even if it is not conscious. Ultimately two snooker balls colliding have an even more rudimentary self awareness. I think I posted this link of Susan Blackmore's before. An interesting take on the absence of consciousness.
Information and free will
DHW: Originally your objection was to the prerequisite of consciousness, so I’m pleased to see you’ve now shifted your ground.
ROMANSH: Not at all, I still think it is an unnecessary prerequisite.
ROMANSH: I don't think a computer makes any free choices or that it's will is free. Also your argument works both ways. The computer is self aware even if it is not conscious. Ultimately two snooker balls colliding have an even more rudimentary self awareness.
I defined consciousness as:“awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environmentâ€. I’d be interested to know how you distinguish between consciousness and self-awareness, and in what "rudimentary" way computers and snooker balls are aware of themselves. You still haven’t explained how we humans can make decisions without being conscious of the information on which they will be based or of the alternatives between which we must choose. (That is not an argument for free will, but an argument for the need to include consciousness in our definition.) Computers also make decisions, but since you agree that they do not have free will, how can you distinguish between them and us in your definition of “free will†other than through consciousness as I’ve defined it? (Remember, the definition can’t say whether we have free will or not.)
Dhw: No matter how much freedom I have, I cannot make decisions that will go against the constraints of Nature, which includes my own nature as it is now: I can’t decide to fly, jump fifty metres, become dictator of the world, or eat a thousand bars of chocolate at one go. None of these “decisions†are within the compass of my current identity, and so they represent given constraints. Similarly with situation: if I’m locked up in prison I can’t decide to go shopping. I can, however, decide whether to sing “Please Release Me†or “Baby, It’s Cold Outsideâ€.
ROMANSH: I'll ask the same question I tried to ask David just. Are our thoughts a reflection of the chemistry going on in our brains? Some seem to think it is the reverse. Some might argue that certain neural pathways get strengthened because of our thoughts. But are not our thoughts a product of the brain's on-going chemistry? So which came first the thought or the brain chemistry?
You challenged me on what I meant by “Natureâ€, and you’ve quoted my response but then asked a totally different question! This one, of course, is unanswerable because it relates to the nature of consciousness, which nobody knows. It therefore reinforces the alternatives I offered you. I’ll rephrase them: 1) we are at the mercy of our chemistry and other influences beyond our control, so we do not have free will; or 2) the chemistry among other influences IS us, and we control it, so we do have free will. I don’t see how it’s possible to go beyond those alternatives, nor do I see how your argument shows that consciousness is not a prerequisite in my choice between the two songs.
ROMANSH: I think I posted this link of Susan Blackmore's before. An interesting take on the absence of consciousness.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/question1.htm
I’m afraid its convolutions leave me cold. We don’t know the nature of consciousness, but if you accept that it includes awareness of one’s own thoughts, you will also have to accept that if our thoughts are about awareness, we are aware of our awareness. We will also be aware of our awareness of our awareness, and so on. There are layers of consciousness, and Susan Blackmore appears only now to have realized it. I would say that animals have far fewer layers than we do, and that computers and snooker balls have no layers at all, but I need to know your distinction between consciousness and self-awareness before we discuss that (if we really want to).
You still haven’t told me why, in my example of choosing a TV programme, a) consciousness is not integral to the process, and b) in what way my decision is forced on me by influences beyond my control. If now your only answer to b) is that I’m at the mercy of my chemistry, we’re back to the alternative views expressed above.
In your earlier post you argued that all choices are dependent on the information we get from our environment. I pointed out that free will relates to the conscious ability to use that information in order to make decisions. Without x and y, there can be no choice between x and y, but free will (if it exists) is the conscious ability to choose between x and y – in other words, x and y are the trigger that sets free will (if it exists) in motion. Again you have not responded.
I suspect that you’ve used your conscious ability to control your decision-making process in order to ignore certain arguments, but on the other hand, you may prefer to attribute it to your brain’s ongoing chemistry! (“My brain made me do it!†as the man says on the video.)
Information and free will
by romansh , Friday, October 14, 2011, 19:52 (4767 days ago) @ dhw
I defined consciousness as:“awareness of one’s own thoughts, perceptions, actions and environmentâ€. I’d be interested to know how you distinguish between consciousness and self-awareness, and in what "rudimentary" way computers and snooker balls are aware of themselves.
Consciousness and self awareness - Not sure that I'm too fussed about it. I suppose consciousness would not be just limited the self.
Are you aware of all the unconscious drivers that cause your will? Or is it just conscious drivers that create your will. If my will is created by my unconscious it seems pointless to me to force conscious into the definition.
Dhw: No matter how much freedom I have, I cannot make decisions that will go against the constraints of Nature, which includes my own nature as it is now: I can’t decide to fly, jump fifty metres, become dictator of the world, or eat a thousand bars of chocolate at one go. None of these “decisions†are within the compass of my current identity, and so they represent given constraints.
The everyday perceptions of freedom are irrelevant and fairly obvious. We are talking about the the ability to choose what we will or desire. Speaking personally I can choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, but I can't choose which one I desire more at any given moment in time.
You challenged me on what I meant by “Natureâ€, and you’ve quoted my response but then asked a totally different question! This one, of course, is unanswerable because it relates to the nature of consciousness, which nobody knows. It therefore reinforces the alternatives I offered you. I’ll rephrase them: 1) we are at the mercy of our chemistry and other influences beyond our control, so we do not have free will; or 2) the chemistry among other influences IS us, and we control it, so we do have free will. What is the "we" that controls, and is the "we" itself uncontrolled?
Whether we have consciousness or not in free will is irrelvant and not necessary at least according to my perception of what "free will" should be.
Now you may add consciousness to yours. Fair enough. The question remains in that we have wills (wants, desires) that we are not aware of, so we should be asking can these wills be free.
You think whether our brain chemistry affects our thoughts is unknowable. But we can experiment on the effect chemicals on my brain and thoughts. I volunteer to be tested - I can suggest some nice single malts as chemicals.
I’m afraid its convolutions leave me cold. We don’t know the nature of consciousness, but if you accept that it includes awareness of one’s own thoughts, you will also have to accept that if our thoughts are about awareness, we are aware of our awareness. We will also be aware of our awareness of our awareness, and so on. Fair enough.
But don't you find like Blackmore most (if not all) your daily activities are as if they were done on autopilot. I can look back on my day or the last half hour and not find any truly conscious spots (memories yes, but consciousness less so). And when I ask myself the question Am I conscious now?, I find what I perceive as my conscious raised, yet I know from experience this apparently conscious will be in gone in five minutes.
You can describe Blackmore's observations as convolutions, but it does not make them such
You still haven’t told me why, in my example of choosing a TV programme, a) consciousness is not integral to the process, and b) in what way my decision is forced on me by influences beyond my control. If now your only answer to b) is that I’m at the mercy of my chemistry, we’re back to the alternative views expressed above.
Think of TV program you really detest. Now when it comes on watch it all the way through. You seem to think this is somehow independent of the conversation we are having. I simply would argue your will (desire) to prove me wrong is simply greater than your desire not to watch the program.
It's not about the control, it's about the homunculus you keep pointing to.
In your earlier post you argued that all choices are dependent on the information we get from our environment. I pointed out that free will relates to the conscious ability to use that information in order to make decisions. Without x and y, there can be no choice between x and y, but free will (if it exists) is the conscious ability to choose between x and y – in other words, x and y are the trigger that sets free will (if it exists) in motion. Again you have not responded.
No - its about the the ability to make those decisions freely. It's about how we choose our wills.
I suspect that you’ve used your conscious ability to control your decision-making process in order to ignore certain arguments, but on the other hand, you may prefer to attribute it to your brain’s ongoing chemistry! (“My brain made me do it!†as the man says on the video.)
Perhaps, but did I do so freely?
One of the reasons I do not answer all your questions, is that there are many of them. My posting style I find lends itself to relatively short exchanges. So I find replying to long posts like this one I tend to miss the odd question or three.
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, November 07, 2011, 14:11 (4744 days ago) @ romansh
Another addition to philosophic thought is embodiment and metaphorical thought. Can you WARM up to this idea? It appears we all speak in metaphores and perhaps deep thought is that way also:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/04/a-brief-guide-to-embodied-cog...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Monday, November 07, 2011, 21:06 (4743 days ago) @ David Turell
A theory that 'somewhat' mentally ill folks helped early humans advance:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228372.000-mental-problems-gave-early-humans-an...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 08, 2011, 17:40 (4742 days ago) @ David Turell
The brain is very plastic and can change its networking. Remember this when you read this article and the comments below.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=70669B02-9E06-A500-D55...
Information and free will and Matt\'s struggles
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 09, 2011, 18:37 (4741 days ago) @ David Turell
The commentaries after this article remind me of Matt's struggles with what is real information and what is not. I'm so obtuse I've never worried much about it. Perhaps I should! I still declare I have free will and scientific facts have withstood the trials of falsification. What those facts prove is another issue:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thought-experiments-philosophers&W...
Information and free will
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 09, 2011, 18:41 (4741 days ago) @ David Turell
A tidbit about our brain's plasticity and how we learn:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-our-brain-learn&WT.mc_id=...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Monday, November 14, 2011, 01:13 (4737 days ago) @ David Turell
A negative comment about fMRI brain scans; Don't believe they tell us as much as the science press hype tries to display:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577024253508340744.html?KEYWORDS...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
DAVID: A negative comment about fMRI brain scans; Don't believe they tell us as much as the science press hype tries to display:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577024253508340744.html?KEYWORDS...
Thank you for this, David. A salient quote: “Until we realize that fMRI is not a window into the soul, that the images it produces are fuzzy statistical representations of a very complex organ, then we'll continue to be misled by the research.â€
The complexity of these mechanisms is mind-boggling, and each finding makes it less clear what actually performs the boggle! I believe it was Tony (balance_maintained) who compared the brain to a computer and asked what operated it. The above choice of words (“not a window into the soulâ€) is striking, but even if the mechanisms do turn out to be self-operating materials, there is still no way one can confidently claim that chance is capable of starting off the process that led to their assembly. However, let me also maintain my own balance: nor would I confidently claim that chance is capable of spawning Abel’s creator gods on Planet X, or that a Universal Intelligence is capable of spawning itself. Maybe it’s time to simply marvel and give up trying to understand!
Information and free will: make a decision!
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 02:48 (4736 days ago) @ dhw
The complexity of these mechanisms is mind-boggling, and each finding makes it less clear what actually performs the boggle! I believe it was Tony (balance_maintained) who compared the brain to a computer and asked what operated it. The above choice of words (“not a window into the soulâ€) is striking, but even if the mechanisms do turn out to be self-operating materials, there is still no way one can confidently claim that chance is capable of starting off the process that led to their assembly.
If you think what you have read is mind-bogglingly complex try this article on decision making:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228381.800-decision-time-how-subtle-forces-shap...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 03:36 (4736 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
The complexity of these mechanisms is mind-boggling, and each finding makes it less clear what actually performs the boggle! I believe it was Tony (balance_maintained) who compared the brain to a computer and asked what operated it. The above choice of words (“not a window into the soulâ€) is striking, but even if the mechanisms do turn out to be self-operating materials, there is still no way one can confidently claim that chance is capable of starting off the process that led to their assembly. However, let me also maintain my own balance: nor would I confidently claim that chance is capable of spawning Abel’s creator gods on Planet X, or that a Universal Intelligence is capable of spawning itself. Maybe it’s time to simply marvel and give up trying to understand!
But trying to understand is what allows us to marvel at its beautiful complexity. :) I'm sitting behind the keyboard to that mass of gray organic material in my skull, whatever I happen to be. Still, as a resident theist, I have to agree that taking the time to just simply marvel (at how wonderfully designed we are) is definitely worth it.
Tony
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 03:47 (4736 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW,
What stood out to me most in the article was not the excerpt you posted, but rather how silly old science still can't learn from its mistakes.
The problems begin, however, when researchers attempt to take complex psychological phenomena, such as the experience of love, and reduce them to particular blobs of cortex. They do this by leaning heavily on complex statistical algorithms that allow them to sort the "noise" from the "signal."
The noise is all those changes in blood flow deemed irrelevant; it's also the vast majority of what's taking place. The end result is that, in many instances, the statistical filter misrepresents our neural reality, focusing on peaks of activity instead of on all the interactions that make those peaks possible. The brain isn't simple; our pictures of the brain shouldn't be, either.
Didn't they do the same thing with DNA by labeling all the 'noise' junk, only to discover that it was not junk at all, and then they followed that up by noticing that the actual structure of the molecule mattered as much, if not more, than the encoding itself? When is science going to learn that you can not simply ignore the things that you don't want to deal with? The human body is a 'system', you can not understand it by only looking at the bits and bobs that you want to. We are more than the sum of our parts... much much much more.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 05:39 (4736 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Didn't they do the same thing with DNA by labeling all the 'noise' junk, only to discover that it was not junk at all, and then they followed that up by noticing that the actual structure of the molecule mattered as much, if not more, than the encoding itself? When is science going to learn that you can not simply ignore the things that you don't want to deal with? The human body is a 'system', you can not understand it by only looking at the bits and bobs that you want to. We are more than the sum of our parts... much much much more.
Right on, brother. Exactly
Information and free will; deterministic universe!
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 01:31 (4735 days ago) @ David Turell
Another nutty book review. The nuttiness is this thought: this is a deterministic universe from the Big Bang on and therefore there is no free will!
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/11/the-riddle-of-free-will-goes-unsol...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
There are two posts from Tony (balance_maintained) on this subject that are full of delightful gems.
1) A quote from the article David was referring to: “The problems begin, however, when researchers attempt to take complex psychological phenomena, such as the experience of love, and reduce them to particular blobs of cortex.â€
2) When is science going to learn that you can not simply ignore the things you don’t want to deal with?
3) We are more than the sum of our parts...much much more.
4) Still, as a resident theist, I have to agree that taking the time to just simply marvel [...] is definitely worth it.
As a resident agnostic, I endorse all the above with much enthusiasm. Apologies for the ellipsis in 4) but I have my reputation to think of!
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 18:32 (4735 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
As a resident agnostic, I endorse all the above with much enthusiasm. Apologies for the ellipsis in 4) but I have my reputation to think of!
Your reputation was the reason I put them in there to begin with. Whether we are wonderfully evolved or wonderfully designed, our biology is really wonderful and worthy of admiration.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 19:03 (4735 days ago) @ David Turell
A negative comment about fMRI brain scans; Don't believe they tell us as much as the science press hype tries to display:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577024253508340744.html?KEYWORDS...
Here is a useful application of brain scans. As an aside I am one of the lucky ones. I don't do depression, I am in excellent health, taking no meds at 82 years old, and I don't feel much pain. Two kidney stones so far passed without pain pills, most cuts don't hurt, and almost all of several surgeries without post-operative analgesia. But most folk are not like me. These interventions based on scans are useful:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038041207168300.html?KEYWORDS...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by DragonsHeart , Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 20:15 (4735 days ago) @ David Turell
I hope that I can say the same when I am 82. Unfortunately, I have battled depression, but overcame it. I have a fairly high pain tolerance, don't take pain medicine if I can at all avoid it.
I very much enjoyed this article. I plan on letting my kids read it, to show them that they CAN do stuff, to not be afraid of any pain that might come from it. My son has shown his capacity for this after he broke both bones in his forearm last year. The hospital gave him morphine for pain, then Lortab 5 for pain after we left the hospital. He didn't take the meds after we went home. Now, if I can just get them to realize that playing and "getting hurt" doesn't have to actually hurt =).
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 21:45 (4735 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
I hope that I can say the same when I am 82. Unfortunately, I have battled depression, but overcame it. I have a fairly high pain tolerance, don't take pain medicine if I can at all avoid it.
MDs over-give pain meds. I was sent home with some after I passed the last stone. My discomfort, I can't call it pain, was gone. Medicine by protocol is stupid. When I practiced medicine it wasn't like this. If pain meds a are taken, there is rebound when stopping. Thank you for your kind comments.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 00:53 (4735 days ago) @ David Turell
Modern medicine is a 'practice' in which the 'medical practioners' are rewarded for giving mind and body altering chemicals in copious amounts to their test subjects... I mean guinea pigs.. I mean patients. Most often, the drugs and side effects are worse than the disease. In all cases, when the drugs are developed they are not taking their effect on the body as a whole into consideration, nor do they possess the understanding to do so with any degree of confidence. When charge for medical treatment and prescription drugs, you are putting a price on peoples health. Unfortunately, that also means that there is more money to be made if people are not healthy.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 01:09 (4735 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Modern medicine is a 'practice' in which the 'medical practioners' are rewarded for giving mind and body altering chemicals in copious amounts to their test subjects... I mean guinea pigs.. I mean patients. Most often, the drugs and side effects are worse than the disease. In all cases, when the drugs are developed they are not taking their effect on the body as a whole into consideration, nor do they possess the understanding to do so with any degree of confidence. When charge for medical treatment and prescription drugs, you are putting a price on peoples health. Unfortunately, that also means that there is more money to be made if people are not healthy.
There is right and wrong in your comments. When I was in practice I saw benefit from my prescriptions in the vast majority of circumstances. I wanted my guys healthy. Many of them became my friends. Now there are the unscrupulous docs, a' la Dr. Murray, but that is another aspect of the problem.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 01:30 (4735 days ago) @ David Turell
B_M
Modern medicine is a 'practice' in which the 'medical practioners' are rewarded for giving mind and body altering chemicals in copious amounts to their test subjects... I mean guinea pigs.. I mean patients. Most often, the drugs and side effects are worse than the disease. In all cases, when the drugs are developed they are not taking their effect on the body as a whole into consideration, nor do they possess the understanding to do so with any degree of confidence. When charge for medical treatment and prescription drugs, you are putting a price on peoples health. Unfortunately, that also means that there is more money to be made if people are not healthy.
DHW
There is right and wrong in your comments. When I was in practice I saw benefit from my prescriptions in the vast majority of circumstances. I wanted my guys healthy. Many of them became my friends. Now there are the unscrupulous docs, a' la Dr. Murray, but that is another aspect of the problem.
There are people out there that take their Hippocratic oath seriously, and take it to heart, who truly want to help others. Unfortunately, in my experience they are in the minority compared with those who entered the medical profession because it is a financially sound decision.
My current dentist, for example, is a wonderful man. He cares about his patients and works hard to meet their needs in a thoughtful, efficient, and economical manner while keeping their overall dental health in the forefront. He gladly discusses alternative treatments for patients who express concern over certain common dental practices and gives sound solid advice. In contrast, the one prior to was a money grubbing slime ball who would do a double root canal on perfectly health teeth because he knew he would get the insurance money and could charge $3000 for a little amount of work.
For eight years, prior to being diagnosed with cancer, my mother was repeated prescribed lithium, zoloft, prozac, and a whole pharmacy of other mind altering chemicals because none of her doctors could be bothered to investigate the underlying reasons for her condition. They treated the symptom, not the disease. By the time they did find it, it was nearly too late and she had to undergo seven abdominal surgeries and lots of chemo. To this day she is not 100% recovered, but she survived and is much, much better. It all could have been avoided though if they had taken the time and showed enough concern for their patient's well being to thoroughly investigate the problem.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by DragonsHeart , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 01:37 (4735 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am currently seeing a Naturopathic doctor. What she is helping me do, is clear out all the crap from my body. Now, I know many people would be skeptical about this, as was I, but when her scanner told me how many fillings my teeth had and which teeth they were in, I was convinced. She is treating my WHOLE body, not just one area or one organ. She's also treating me as a PERSON, not just a PATIENT. I am not taking any "medication" as such. Instead, I am taking homeopathic supplements, that are closer to the plants they are derived from as opposed to drugs.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by BBella , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 03:06 (4735 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
I am currently seeing a Naturopathic doctor. What she is helping me do, is clear out all the crap from my body. Now, I know many people would be skeptical about this, as was I, but when her scanner told me how many fillings my teeth had and which teeth they were in, I was convinced. She is treating my WHOLE body, not just one area or one organ. She's also treating me as a PERSON, not just a PATIENT. I am not taking any "medication" as such. Instead, I am taking homeopathic supplements, that are closer to the plants they are derived from as opposed to drugs.
I too see a Naturopath, DH, and all my family as well, and have been for years. Most are skeptical on this board of homeopathics, but I personally have been using it for many years and find it, at times, a miraculous remedy, especially for children and animals. One in particular that is especially helpful, you may or may not heard of, is called Bioplasma. It's a cell salt. If you aren't familiar with cell salts you can check them out online.
Also, I was curious what the method is called that your Naturopath is using as a scanner? My Naturopath is a world traveler who is always looking for new methods of healing, and a good friend I might add, So just thought I might let him know about it....if you feel ok in disclosing the info openly?
Thanks,
bb
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by DragonsHeart , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 13:10 (4735 days ago) @ BBella
She uses a hand cradle device called ZYTO. The software that is uses is awesome. It tells you where your body is out of balance, and then she helps you correct it. Tony has seen the device in use. He might be able to explain it better than I can.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by BBella , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 04:23 (4734 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
She uses a hand cradle device called ZYTO. The software that is uses is awesome. It tells you where your body is out of balance, and then she helps you correct it. Tony has seen the device in use. He might be able to explain it better than I can.
Thanks DH! I appreciate the info and plan to ask him if he has heard of it next time we visit~!
bb
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 05:08 (4735 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
I am currently seeing a Naturopathic doctor. What she is helping me do, is clear out all the crap from my body. Now, I know many people would be skeptical about this, as was I, but when her scanner told me how many fillings my teeth had and which teeth they were in, I was convinced. She is treating my WHOLE body, not just one area or one organ. She's also treating me as a PERSON, not just a PATIENT. I am not taking any "medication" as such. Instead, I am taking homeopathic supplements, that are closer to the plants they are derived from as opposed to drugs.
Always treat, always study the whole person. Always take a complete history, do a complete physical exam. Do the proper lab work. Then make decisions, not before. I lost patients who would not do it my way. I also fired patients. My patients had carefully shared information, and were trained to understand it. Then we decided.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 14:59 (4734 days ago) @ David Turell
Then you are a rare bird indeed. The majority of the Dr.'s I have visited have done little if any lab work, know next to nothing about me personally, and only have the medical history that is on their little for you have to fill out when you check in, which is to say, hardly anything at all.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will:Gazaniga\'s thoughts
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 21:12 (4734 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A famed neuroscientist is interviewed:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzan...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 21:15 (4734 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Then you are a rare bird indeed. The majority of the Dr.'s I have visited have done little if any lab work, know next to nothing about me personally, and only have the medical history that is on their little for you have to fill out when you check in, which is to say, hardly anything at all.
You are being nice. I come from a previous generation of physicians who were taught differently about people, and treated people differently. My partner is still practicing. Some of us old guys are around. Wait until Obamacare takes full grip. You will be miserable, if not already. And no, I don't have an active license.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Sunday, November 27, 2011, 15:24 (4723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A NY Times opinion article by a philosopher. He thinks brain scans are confusing the issue and I think he is correct:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 27, 2011, 18:22 (4723 days ago) @ David Turell
I know the author touched on this a little, but, is it just me or has the trend in nearly all the sciences bend to try and remove responsibility from the individual?
"Oh, this person has a psychological condition which prevents them from NOT shoving tons of food into their gullet. Don't blame them for the fact this condition also prevents them from exercising and eating healthy food thus leading to gross obesity. It's not THEIR fault, they have no choice."
"Oh, look, this guy over here never learned to control his emotions because he has hormones."
"But don't we all have hormones in various quantities and balances that are unique to individuals?"
"Don't be absurd, he has a hormone imbalance that determines that he will be angry, happy, or sad in varying degrees that can fluctuate from moment to moment based on internal or external stressors beyond his control."
"Oh, so you mean he has feelings."
*Sigh* "How can you be so heartless! It is OBVIOUS that this person is sick and in need of mind altering drugs. He has no control over his actions."
"Well, what about those kids that ran around shooting up the school?"
"That was an obvious case of how a bi-polar ADHD schiztophrenic neurotic sociopath responds to fictional violence in video games. It wasn't HIS fault."
"What about Bill Clinton?"
"An obvious fixation caused by a mental instability that leads to an uncontrollable urge to fornicate and then cover it up with lies. This was all documented in a study about a fairly common disease called Imascummypolitician. Don't you keep up?"
"What about the mom that killed her kids?"
"Which one? Oh, nm, it doesn't really matter. It wasn't their fault either. They were all genetically predisposed to manic depression and bi-polar schizophrenics to boot. Even more telling is that their actions are all suggestive of a cry for help in their struggle against a loss of identity engendered by the raceis chauvinistic class based system that they struggle against. See? It wasn't their fault that they brutally murdered their kids. They had no choice."
*Sigh*
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 00:48 (4723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I know the author touched on this a little, but, is it just me or has the trend in nearly all the sciences bend to try and remove responsibility from the individual?
No, I think it is a societal quirk to try and remove all individual responsibilty and use science in the process. These days no one is responsibile for anything.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 01:07 (4723 days ago) @ David Turell
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy...
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
I found Eddy Nahmias's article itself rather woolly, as the author doesn’t believe in mind/body dualism, and doesn’t really offer any explanation for the provenance of free will if the body is all there is. But I remember Tony saying something to the effect that we are more than the sum of our parts, and Matt has frequently updated us on progress in the field of AI. David is very sceptical as to whether humans will ever be able to build a form of AI that matches ours, but putting these various viewpoints together may give us a possible lead. If there really is no mind/body dualism (i.e. no unknown form of energy that is able to control the physical brain), the alternative can only be that within the brain is a physical mechanism that has overall control (will). Maybe in another ten thousand years scientists will have come up with the goods – hold on, David…I haven’t finished yet – a machine that has its own consciousness and will, with ten thousand refinements to the mechanisms already built in our time. This will prove that will, consciousness, emotion etc. do have their source in materials. But it will also prove that conscious minds have experimented over and over again, refining existing machines step by step, discarding those that don’t work, retaining those that do, adapting them, adding new bits….So hey ho, what do we have? Evolution guided by conscious design. Only speculating, folks.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 17:59 (4722 days ago) @ dhw
You may just be speculating but you are probably pretty close to the truth, or at least part of it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 18:36 (4722 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You may just be speculating but you are probably pretty close to the truth, or at least part of it.
What part?
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 19:46 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
DHW's comment:
Maybe in another ten thousand years scientists will have come up with the goods – hold on, David…I haven’t finished yet – a machine that has its own consciousness and will, with ten thousand refinements to the mechanisms already built in our time. This will prove that will, consciousness, emotion etc. do have their source in materials. But it will also prove that conscious minds have experimented over and over again, refining existing machines step by step, discarding those that don’t work, retaining those that do, adapting them, adding new bits….So hey ho, what do we have? Evolution guided by conscious design.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 18:30 (4722 days ago) @ dhw
If there really is no mind/body dualism (i.e. no unknown form of energy that is able to control the physical brain), the alternative can only be that within the brain is a physical mechanism that has overall control (will). Maybe in another ten thousand years scientists will have come up with the goods – hold on, David…I haven’t finished yet – a machine that has its own consciousness and will, with ten thousand refinements to the mechanisms already built in our time. This will prove that will, consciousness, emotion etc. do have their source in materials. But it will also prove that conscious minds have experimented over and over again, refining existing machines step by step, discarding those that don’t work, retaining those that do, adapting them, adding new bits….So hey ho, what do we have? Evolution guided by conscious design. Only speculating, folks.
And here is an article that says psychopaths have different brain structure. Remember that a child's conscience is formed by age 12 from parents and other social input, but if a brain is built in such a way that it cannot accept that education, we get a weird personality:
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 17:11 (4733 days ago) @ David Turell
Studies of brain circuits gives tiny glimpses of how the monster computeer works. Remember the brain is very plastic and keeps remodeling:
Information and free will: Brain handles odors
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 16:04 (4729 days ago) @ David Turell
A complex filtering system sorts out odors:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-neuronal-filters-broadband-transmission-brain.html
Information and free will: Orgasm
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 17:38 (4729 days ago) @ David Turell
Not prurient, but it shows the areas of the brain that can light up during the female event. Remember we are seeing blood flow, not neurons:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/11/female-orgasm-movie-shows-how-the-brain-...
Information and free will: Orgasm
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 21, 2011, 19:32 (4729 days ago) @ David Turell
As interesting as the video is, there are some fatal flaws in the design of the experiment. The first, and possibly most important point is this:
"..a woman stimulated herself inside an fMRI machine."
The reason that is so critical is because, since the stimulation was 100% self generated in an environment that could hardly be described as stimulating, a lot of the brain activity they are seeing is probably being generated by a mix of memory and fantasy that the woman is using to stimulate herself in addition to whatever physical method she is using.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Information and free will: Orgasm
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 20:33 (4729 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As interesting as the video is, there are some fatal flaws in the design of the experiment. The first, and possibly most important point is this:
"..a woman stimulated herself inside an fMRI machine."
However she got to orgasm, you are simply seeing the moment of the event, not all the rest you are talking about. The issue is the way the brain pulls in parts of itself at that moment. Recruitment, recruitment with neurons firing and synapses being filtered and monitored. Signals expessed and supressed. It is studies like this that make me believe AI will aways be AI and Brain-I will always be different and never computer attainable.
Information and free will: morality
by David Turell , Friday, December 16, 2011, 16:22 (4704 days ago) @ David Turell
The psychology of morality. Why are liberals and conservatives so different?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/08/jonathan-haidt-the-moral-matr...
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Monday, January 30, 2012, 14:46 (4659 days ago) @ David Turell
The message is don't over-interpret brain scans:-http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/the-amygdala-and-fear-are-not-the-same-thing.html
Information and free will: brain scan value?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 21, 2012, 01:50 (4578 days ago) @ David Turell
The message is don't over-interpret brain scans: > > http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/the-amygdala-and-fear-are-n... stupid book about brain scans with the proper review:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/19/imagine-creativity-jonah-lehrer-review
Information and free will: sex of brains
by David Turell , Monday, May 28, 2012, 23:29 (4540 days ago) @ David Turell
Men and women do differ, but how much:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428661.500-men-and-women-different-brains-same-aims.html?page=1-sign up- to read article. Harmless
Information and free will:
by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2012, 01:02 (4492 days ago) @ David Turell
Living beings as robots run by information in DNA. Craig Venter reinvents a view of life. -http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/07/passing-the-baton-of-life---from-schrodinger-to-venter.html
Information and free will:
DAVID: Living beings as robots run by information in DNA. Craig Venter reinvents a view of life. -http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/07/passing-the-baton-of-life---from-s...-"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."-Far be it from a fence-sitter to present your case for you, David, and perhaps you're just being uncharacteristically coy (or characteristically subtle), but it strikes me that hundreds of thousands of robots carrying out precise - and different - functions suggest a certain degree of intelligence at work. And now we have humans designing new DNA software as if to emphasize the point!
Information and free will:
by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2012, 15:00 (4492 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Living beings as robots run by information in DNA. Craig Venter reinvents a view of life. > > http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/07/passing-the-baton-of-life---from-s... > "All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software." > > Far be it from a fence-sitter to present your case for you, David, and perhaps you're just being uncharacteristically coy (or characteristically subtle), but it strikes me that hundreds of thousands of robots carrying out precise - and different - functions suggest a certain degree of intelligence at work. And now we have humans designing new DNA software as if to emphasize the point!-DNA is considered a brilliant information coding system, extremely efficient storage mechanism. A recent study tried a six letter code but four is still best. (Can't find the reference, or I'd post it.
Information and free will
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 22, 2011, 23:16 (4759 days ago) @ David Turell
David Deutsch of Oxford (Physicist) on information has a life of its own and free will certainly exists:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38888?in=36:40&out=46:45
Anyone want to argue with his concepts?
I'm only through his explanation of information as "real," but, heh, so far he's only restating Dawkins' idea of the meme... more as I have time...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"