Action/Reaction

Macallan 1946.

And sorry,you cannot have a pint.

That's like saying once you fill up your gas tank, your car then takes a predetermined path....

An exception might be a radioactive atom. It has a 50% chance of decaying in its half-life, but exactly when it happens is apparently totally random, an effect with no cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

In the real world, cause and effect is more complicated than dominos. Systems where feedback is nonlinear, which are very common in nature, exhibit chaotic behavior where an infinitesimal difference can grow in time, the so-called "butterfly effect". The classic example is forecasting the weather. Given time, random quantum fluctuations can grow to macroscopic effects, e.g., Schrodinger's Cat.

I'm not so sure. Perhaps without intent our chum has raised the issue of 'random' versus 'chaotic'.

Geneating (for instance) a random number is something that in my understanding cannot be done. Chaotic refers to a situation so complex we cannot determine all the factors and thus the outcome. Just my 2 cents, though I'll happily stand corrected on the terms.

I do read the frustration that a few members have expressed, but it doesn't seem (to me) to ammount to trolling. Possibly deliberatly contencious, but this is a place for debate and exchange of views.

Happily I am away for the next week, so I'll check later to see who has butchered who. Probably me, and by all parties, but my reactions are a bit slow anyway. Bad play on words aside, there is merit to this discussion.

The flaw in your train is the assumption that there is a type of logical fallacy called equivocation.

Action and reaction in Newton's third law is not exactly the same as action and reaction of common language. One important difference is that there is no time delay for the Newtonian action/reaction whereas in common language a reaction necessarily follows an action.

So there is no "one comes before quality". Either force might be considered the action witu the other being the reaction.

The other thing to remember is that we aren't really describing the universal machine code directing the goings on behind the fascade.

"Essentially, all models are wrong. Some are useful" -George E.P. Box

I expected this reaction to my post.

I have a problem with "Chaotic" and "Random"

Chaotic describes a system that is too complicated to analyze with our present technology or knowledge,likewise with Random.

They are just two labels we assign to things we cannot yet explain.

Some things thought to be random on Earth have been discovered to be affected by sunspot activity.

https://cuthelain.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay/

Things once thought chaotic have now been found to be organized,but in a very complex manner.

Small effects can be amplified by subsequent actions,such as multiple branching in an arrangements of dominoes,or a bowling ball knocking down 10 pins.

With enough branches,the beginning domino is impossible to trace with our present technology.

When we become sufficiently advanced,the butterfly effect will be traceable back to the caterpillar.

We presently can predict the movement of a cloud,but not the movement of every molecule in the cloud.

Admittedly,we have far to go,but that does not mean it is impossible.(IMHO)

(Reactions to this are expected. )

Quit trolling.

My post is not meant to be inflammatory or provocative,it is merely thought provoking,encouraging one to think outside the box.

If everything assumed to be true was never challenged there would never be any progress.

Quit lying, too. The quaint presence of emoticons is a dead giveaway.

Chaotic describes a system that is too complicated to analyze with our present technology or knowledge,likewise with Random.

Actually, chaos doesn't indicate a lack of understanding or knowledge. A simple mathematical equation will demonstrate chaos. A system is chaotic if a very small change in the input creates a large change in the output. Here is a simple example:

It is expressed in the mathematical formula:

http://www.bendov.info/cours/chaos/logistic.htm

Chaos isn't necessarily random, there is sometimes order in chaos:

Quantum effects, as far as is known, are truly random.

By your definition" A system is chaotic if a very small change in the input creates a large change in the output." any amplifier would be chaotic.

"Quantum effects, as far as is known,(Ah,there's the rub) are truly random".

By your definition" A system is chaotic if a very small change in the input creates a large change in the output." any amplifier would be chaotic.

You're right, that could have been worded better.

A better definition might be: "A system is chaotic if a small change in the input changes the behavior of the system."

It was noticed by Edward Lorenz, who was modeling weather systems. He found that a very small change in the values used in his model resulted in a significant divergence in the results over time, the so-called "butterfly effect".

"Lorenz built a mathematical model of the way air moves around in the atmosphere. As Lorenz studied weather patterns he began to realize that the weather patterns did not always behave as predicted. Minute variations in the initial values of variables in his twelve-variable computer weather model (c. 1960, running on an LGP-30 desk computer) would result in grossly divergent weather patterns.^[2]This sensitive dependence on initial conditions, which came to be known as the butterfly effect, meant that weather predictions from more than about a week out are generally fairly inaccurate.^[13]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz}

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory}

".... Some things thought to be random on Earth have been discovered to be affected by sunspot activity....."

.

This does not diminish the randomness. Randomness does not mean unaffected by anything else. Radiodecay of a certain atom still occurs randomly even though decay of enough of those atoms can be modeled well. The same remains true even if something effects the average of thr group of decays; the individual decay of atoms is still random.

Some things thought to be random on Earth have been discovered to be affected by sunspot activity.

Another experiment using better instrumentation apparently made the effect disappear...

"Well, it looks like there is some question about it. Two scientists from Germany decided to measure the rate of radioactive decay of the same isotope (Chlorine-36) that was used in some of the previously-mentioned studies. However, they decided to use a different experimental technique. The studies that showed variation in the rate of radioactive decay used a Geiger-Muller detector (often called a “Geiger counter”) to measure the radioactive decay. The two scientists who authored this study used a superior system, based on liquid scintillation detectors. The authors contend (and I agree) that the response of such detectors is much easier to control than the response of Geiger-Muller detectors, so their results are more reliable. They also used a particular technique, called triple-to-double coincidence ratio, that reduces “noise” caused by background radiation. When doing detailed measurements of radioactive decay, this is one of the standard techniques employed.

What did they see with their more reliable system? They saw some small variations (much smaller than those seen in the previous studies), but unlike the other studies, those variations were not correlated with the season. They seem to be completely random. This makes it look like the previous measurements that saw fluctuations correlated with the seasons were wrong. As the authors state:1

The work presented here, clearly proves that variations in the instrument readings in 36Cl measurements are due to the experimental setup rather than due to a change in the 36Cl decay rates."

http://blog.drwile.com/maybe-the-sun-doesnt-affect-radioactive-decay-rates/

Therefore, IF, a very big and robust if, we knew and could analyse the equations of motion of every particle in the universe, we could accurately predict happenings--predestination. Instead, we have to describe many things as random, and our predictions are based on averages and knowledge of past behavior.

If I understand the point correct, big bang is a reaction to something. That would leave no conclusion other than the universe exists in a cyclical state of expansion and collape.

To think otherwise would cause a contradiction between paragraphs 2 and 1.

There is a current theory of a "bouncing universe" that alternates between expansion and collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

In my lickle mind, I find it hard to comprehend anything other than bounce theory. That hardly solves my mental dilemma of understanding origins of the universe. The bounce must have started somewhere/sometime. Some people call it 'God', I'll settle for 'beyond comprehension'. The poor sod who figures it out has my sympathy - nobody else will believe or understand. Come to think of it, people have killed each other since the dawn of humankind over the issue. They tend to be the people who like the finality of their chosen god as an answer.

"There are no independent actions,only reactions. All actions will follow a predetermined path".

When you include the "free-will" factor of animals/humans, not all (re)actions are pre-determined.

There are solid arguments that suggest free will is just an illusion.

The mistake here is assuming that "the will" and "the action" are identical. I posit that you can do things against your will. And, also have the will to do something without the power/opportunity to actually do it. Even tho Schrodinger's cat cannot escape that box, there is nothing prohibiting it from willing to get out of the box; the lack of its ability to actually do it, does not eliminate the will itself. Choosing one's actions based on one's present abilities/opportunities, does not stop the will for some other "impossibility". Someone in solitary confinement might "will" to be out in general population (but not allowed to). Someone in gen-pop might will to be in medium-security. Someone in med-sec might will to be in low-security. Someone in low-sec might will to be out of prison. Someone out of prison might will to be out of the city, out of the country, off of the Earth, out of the galaxy, out of the universe, etc. The impossibility of it does not eliminate the will.

Humans DO have the capacity/power/ability to stop having children. It is NOT an illusion to so decide. There is no imperative to bring another "entity with free-will" into this world. That is not a foregone conclusion.

This argument seems to be similar to the "money doesn't buy happiness" arguments that the rich tell the poor just get them to stop whining and "get with the program".

"... I posit that you can do things against your will. ..."

Do you mean freely/without coercion do things against your own will? If that is your claim, none of your examples represent that. Every example is of a differnt sort i.e. willing something that they seemingly cannot bring about..

People may indeed be of 'two minds' at times, but that internal struggle is part of how we select what we might will, it does not suggest that we will things that we don't actually will.

More importantly, confusion over what is being actively willed and what might be willed in an ideal state, doesn't make any willing more free. You are still constrained by what you know, how you reason, your life experiences, your current mental state, your brain physiology, time of day, when you last ate/drank, what you last ate/drank, temperature, etc.

And you're free to believe that, just as I'm free not to.

That is certainly the common mantra. But no you are incorrect I'm not free to believe something I understand to be incorrect or alternately to disbelieve something that I understand to be correct.

In a similar fashion if my hand is burned in a fire and I'm experiencing excruciating pain Hema I'm not free to feel there is no pain. Similarly if my hand is horribly burned and remarkably for some reason I don't feel any pain I'm not really free to feel that there is pain. Not really free to believe in the most real sense whatever I want.

"That is certainly the common mantra.". Maybe. But, it's too easy to rationalize an unknown to pretend that it is known, and thus deceive yourself. There are a lot of people that say, "Fake it until you make it.". And a lot more people who just jump onto the band-wagon because of "FOMO" (fear of missing out). And, once they've jumped onto that band-wagon, they find it very difficult to get back off. And thus, some self-deceptions are contagious. And there's nothing more pointless than an investigator/researcher who has his mind already made up. Therefore, I reserve the "right" to have free-will (regardless of what anyone else believes). I will not abdicate my Will to any external entity. But, it might be too late for some others.

Reserving the right is easily done as you've demonstrated. Exercising that right, on the other hand, remains elusive as you have also demonstrated.

It appears you are no more free to be persuaded by this argument than I am free to resist the persuasiveness.

Good point. But, regardless of what conclusion is drawn from it, it is what it is.

But then again, maybe the point is that NO conclusion CAN be drawn from it. Freedom from it (the conclusion) is maintained, regardless of the stubbornness of the participants.

There is no shortage of conclusions drawn. The fact that there is very little resemblance between our respective drawings, doesn't mean nothing was drawn. Quite the contrary, two highly distinct drawings were made.

"Quite the contrary, two highly distinct drawings were made."

So, where do you think this predetermined path will take us?

I don't accept the premise that a lack of freedom of will is sufficient or even necessary for existence to be predetermined.

I didn't say it was. What I was trying to say, was that, if life is really predetermined, and humans didn't like it, they can always refuse to perpetuate the race by not reproducing, and not participate in it. And, that requires free-will. The freedom to answer the question, "To be, or not to be?" for themselves. Turning humans into robots doesn't count.

And even if free-will has no possible means to manifest itself, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All you can do is speak for yourself and say that YOU don't have free-will within yourself. You can't prove it one way or the other in someone else, unless you are their maker and know how they're made.

But as for me myself and I, I believe I have free-will and will not abdicate it to any rationalization to the contrary. And, I will also not accept that as an excuse for someone else to break their promises (not everything can be classified as "beyond control"). If everything was beyond control, I just don't believe the human race would survive. If it were a fact, it couldn't have been hidden so well for so long. People might be dumb, but not that dumb, regardless of the quality of this logical illusion.

The passion with which you resist (and commit to always resist despite any future evidence/observations) this idea speaks volumes why the dominant theory of free will has persisted.

Now let's rein in some of those red herrings you've been fervently dragging around.

Admitting that your will is not completely free does not mean you have to forgive or overlook someone's failure to keep a promise. Your reaction will probably remain the same, based on all the various factors and while it will seem like that is your decision, your conscious self probably has very little in the way of influencing your reaction, certainly not absolute freedom to react however you consciously decide is best.

Admitting your will is not completely free does not additionally imperial the human race. The same decisions likely will be made as before the insight. You probably won't even feel different. Anyway, don't let fear get in the way of the possibility of understanding.

"..All you can do is speak for yourself and say that YOU don't have free-will within yourself. You can't prove it one way or the other in someone else, unless you are their maker and know how they're made. ..."

Wait a minute, why should you be able to dictate what I can do and what I can speak for, yet claim that no one else can. That seems a bit religious hypocritical. Anyway, I don't have to be someone's 'maker' to know how they were made. I'm not going to go for it right here. That's something that your parents really should have covered with you sometime before it became possible for you to make other individuals.

Let me ask you a question would you say a roulette table has free will? I mean whether you made the roulette table or someone else may the roulette table let's just assume that you know how it works. Do you think a roulette table has free will?

Wait a minute. "...Admitting that your will is not completely free does not mean..."

The key here is "completely". I never said it is completely free. But, it does bring up the definition of what exactly "will" is. If it's not really free, can it really be "will"? A mandatory choice is no choice at all. Maybe this is more of a conflict of semantics. Regardless, I also want to point out the difference between "digital" and "analog" thinking. Digital thinking is yes/no, all/nothing. Analog thinking is allowing for different degrees between two conditions/points. With digital thinking, the two conditions would be "exist/doesn't-exist". Totally one or the other. Analog thinking allows the existence of a blend of both states at the same time (not totally free, and not totally void).

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out an irony with quantum physics. When you deal with quanta, it's all or nothing (digital). Not very accommodating for "Two States At The Same Time" conditions. And with analog, it's not very accommodating for "all or nothing" conditions. Now apply that to free-will. Yes/no, all/nothing, or a little of both?

So the roulette table.... Does it have free will?

If you are given only three choices of interacting with the roulette table, a. Smash it with a ball peen hammer, or b. Smash it with a sledge hammer, or c. Ignore it, and you must (will) interact can you agree that your interaction is not completely free? You wouldn't call your constrained interaction in that example free, would you, even if not completely free?

"So the roulette table.... Does it have free will?" Since it cannot spin itself or change its own velocity, I'd say no.

"If you are given only three choices of interacting with the roulette table, a, b, or c...." As long as there is more than one choice, I am free to will myself to act within those boundaries. As long as those boundaries are included in the context, there should be no confusion. No matter how small the freedom, free-will exists. If no freedom exists, then there can be no manifestation of free-will to observe, whether it exists or not (free or not). And just because you can't observe it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I could tell you what my will/desire is. But the impossibility of it, or whether you believe me not, has no influence on my ABILITY to "will". But, if free-will did not exist, then I couldn't "will" at all. I'd be dead or a robot.

If your choice is the result of your thoughts,and your thoughts are the result of electrical signals in your brain,and these signals are the result of chemical actions,and all actions are reactions,which are in turn products of previous actions..ad infinitum...

Maybe. But, that's a big IF.

Even tho a lot of people believe that, I haven't accepted the "proof" of that. I still think a lot of that is mostly an unproven cause/effect and mostly just a correlation. Heck, nobody has yet proved what came first, the chicken or the egg.

That always seemed to be a simple question to me.

An egg has to be incubated,therefor the chicken came first.

I know,the chicken is the result of a hatched egg,so round and round we go and

where it stops nobody knows.

Truth is not a compromise,it is an opinion.

Everyone's truth is different and personal.

Consider the dress that people saw in different colors:

https://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/

To each his own truth I say.

From my perspective you are conflating 'freedom' (liberty) with 'choice'.Choice between three given selections is not substantially more free than the roulette table. You cannot arrive at an outcome outside the set number of options provided, just as the roulette table cannot arrive at a outcome not built in. The roulette table cannot spin itself, and you don't get to answer the provided question until it has been provided to you.

You are not dead, yet. You may fit the criteria you have for being a robot, just one that believes it 'decides' between many choices using some magic within, unaware that the selections are being made based on programing very difficult to selfexamine.

"conflating 'freedom' (liberty) with 'choice'" They are very closely related. Without choice/options, there is no freedom/wiggle-room. And, without freedom, the result is given, not chosen (random or not).

This argument is a good example. If your answer is the only "choice" available, then no other possibility is allowed to be considered. That's one of the problems of "jumping on the band-wagon" too early. Once you're on/committed-to it, you can't look at other band-wagons. Maybe your free-will is so small/subconscious that you just can't recognize it any more. Maybe you need to take your free-will out for a walk and get some exercise.

Ad hominem attacks betray a lack of conviction in your own argument.

Choice is definitely easy and commonly conflated with freedom. Freedom and choice are distict though.

Having a choice of 30 different brands of toilet paper does not make you meaningfully more free than someone who has a choice of only 3 different brands of toilet paper.

"Ad hominem attacks betray a lack of conviction in your own argument." I don't know what hominem means or what attack you refer to. As far as lack of conviction, I'm always open to a convincing argument otherwise. I never want to close the door to the possibility that I'm wrong. I'm glad you noticed.

"meaningfully more free" is not the point. You were trying to say it doesn't exist at all.

"Freedom and choice are distinct though." Please be more specific about how that distinction is "meaningfully more distinct" as required/needed in this discussion.

I would really like you to listen to the song Donovan; New Year's Resovolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykrgafq4oyc

This has the lyrics in it so there's no misunderstanding. At one point it says, "I was the one who clipped my wings." And yes, you do have the freedom to clip your own wings. That's part of "To be/fly, or not to be/fly?"

It's from the album Open Road which has a lot of other "freedom" songs.

1. An ad hominem attack is when you ridicule the person making the argument instead of debating the point; as in when you suggested my ability to recognize could be impaired because argument that we are not possessed of free will has strong merit from my perspective. I need not have free will to be right on this. Perhaps I am not free to be wrong on this point.

2. In using 'meaningfully more free' I was comparing two conditions that differ in the amount of choice. I was hoping you could understand that if additional choice does not meaningfully increase freedom, that you could understand at least that choice is not sufficient for freedom in and of itself. 'Meaningfully more free' was and is not the main point. It is a stepping stone. A small point that I was hoping you would consider. Instead you took the statement out of context as if you could gain points by pointing out an shift in my claim. I might decide at some point, given compelling evidence to modify my argument, but nothing has changed so far.

3. I have not yet listened to the song. I will listen to it because you have asked me to. In return, I ask that you escape from the 'gotcha' mindset and attempt to reread our discussion allowing for the possibility that the argument you have been opposing might have merit. I believe any rebuttal you provide after that might be far more valuable.

1) I wasn't aware of any ad hominem attack. Perhaps I just worded it wrong? If you refer to "Maybe your free-will is so small/subconscious that you just can't recognize it any more.", I didn't mean that as an attack. I meant it as, that maybe you got lost somewhere that you're no longer yourself anymore. Case in point: "...possessed of free will...". I don't know for sure, but I suspect this is a Freudian Slip. I think you really meant, "in possession of free-will". But, "being possessed of free-will" tells me that you are not your own. and that some other free-willed entity has possession of you. And this does seem more congruent with your arguments so far.

2) "if additional choice does not meaningfully increase freedom, that you could understand at least that choice is not sufficient for freedom in and of itself". Well, don't confuse "the freedom to manifest the will" with "the freedom of will itself ". If the amount/quality of choice is inadequate, free-will to choose is not negated. But, my point was that even with no choice available, you could still "will" for another (unavailable) choice. I want to discern between free-will and the manifestation of it. One is observable, and the other is not.

3) To fix a problem, you must first identify it. I'm a trouble-shooter, and I'm in the habit of telling my problems, "gotcha" when I find them. Don't take it personally, that's just part of my trouble-shooting. Without that, I wouldn't be able to respond at all. But, if you feel "got", then maybe that's your subconscious telling you that I'm right. Now, all you have to do, is bring your subconscious into consciousness. Figure out what it really means, and then get back to me. That way, you'll make fewer Freudian Slips. But, don't feel bad, we all do it one time time another.

4) This might be off-topic. But, I want to say something about being clear/unbiased/not-loaded. When I attempt be so, I am often accused/criticized for being "politically correct". A lot of people dislike that, and can't see beyond it. So, I just want to give an example of how it can change the perception of things. There are some products used by the VA that have printed on them, "Created with pride by Americans who are blind". Consider that to be an example of "politically correct". Now consider this alternative as an example of being "politically incorrect": "Created by prideful Yankees who can't see what they're doing". Technically, both statements would be factual. But, one is "loaded" and implies something more than just "the facts". I do try to be "politically correct", but sometimes it backfires. I hope you can see beyond that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be%20possessed%20of

My use of a conjugation of 'to be possessed of' is not indicative of a freudian slip. It isn't even nonstandard grammar, though it is idiomatic. This is exactly the type of 'gotcha' to which I was referring; reactionary in assuming something novel to your eye must be an error accompanied by overconfidence so that the accusation is made without considering your snap reaction might not be correct (in this case, a very easy check of Merriam Webster would have kept you safe of the perils of attempting psychoanalysis with such limited perspective). By the way, your freudian slip comment is yet another ad hominem attack, just more polite this go around.

Never in my whole life have I ever used that word that way. Nor heard it used that way. I know meriam-webster is reputable. But, still this sounds more English than American. I don't define "lifts" as elevators, or windscreens as windshields. And, I don't relate "possessed of" to mean "in possession of". But, Instead of trying to either relearn the language, or rewrite the dictionary, I'll think I'll just drop it. I can see I'm wasting my time. Instead, I'll offer-up this poem (written by me):

AN ILLINOIS BOY
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
But without relevancy, a parable may sound a bit odd.
Words require a language. So what language do you speak?
I think I speak English. But it may come out Greek.
If hearing comes by the word of God, then how does the Word come?
Since I can't hear yet, then I'd like to see some.
I try to be good and walk by faith and not by sight,
But if I can't see the Word, then I'll never hear the Light!
If I can't hear your book, use an interpreter please.
I know the majority rules, but I still don't know Chinese!
My only goal is to fill my Soul
But how do I stop blundering?
So many facts give me cataracts
And I'm left in the dust just wondering.
Stop the flood and fill the vacancy.
All I need is a little relevancy.

Roads to pave, but not by slave.
Don't miss the connection by blinkin'
The dream of Dreams is not what it seems,
So where's the missing Lincoln?
(get it? the missing link? and Lincoln's dead? good pun)
The slaves are free and I want their joy.
So I'll sing the song, "Thank God I'm An Illinois Boy".
Oh that poor Helen Keller, no wonder she was a clod.
Why can't faith come by feeling and feeling by the word of God?
But whether faith comes by sound, sight or touch,
Let the word come, but not by too much.
I don't want a flood, but there is a vacancy.
All that's really needed is a little relevancy.
Earth to God: I don't want to be guilty of blinkin'
Would you help me please, to find the missing Lincoln?
If I smell something in the air, and God's way is how it goes,
I'll know I'm just hearing God's word in Chinese thru my nose.
Parables were used to open many a door.
And I'll stand on this here metaphor.
My only goal is to fill my Soul
And to lock out all the blundering.
If our noses smell more than roses,
Then we won't be kept wondering.
No more flood and no more vacancy.
All we need is a little relevancy.
Roads to pave, but not by slave.
It's done with a little thinkin'.
The slaves are free and so are we.
Oh how I love the land of Lincoln!
I can live without pretended joy
And thank God I'm an Illinois boy.
The slaves are free and so are we.
I can live with genuine joy.
Roads to pave, but not by slave.
Thank God I'm an Illinois boy.
Yeah, thank God I'm an Illinois boy!

"...I can see I'm wasting my time. ...."

.

Wasting your time?

What happened to those pledges of devotion to learning, like the one about always leaving the door open to the possibility that you are wrong?

That pledge certainly evaporated quickly in the face of being introduced to a standard language meaning you had not know before. Now you protest it is a chore to learn your own language? Language is not something we really ever reach a point of being finished (as in nothing else to learn).

If you aren't truly committed to learning and vetting your own understanding, your earlier claims that you are open to the possibility of being wrong, seem a lot more like a bit of sophistry of an appeal to authority, rather than a reality.

Perhaps you are right that you are just wasting time.

"So the roulette table.... Does it have free will?" Since it cannot spin itself or change its own velocity, I'd say no.

OK, does a radium atom have free will?

I think it's more likely for a free-will entity to have a radium atom, than for a radium atom to have free-will. Why do you ask?

"Free will", if it exists, is confused with a random action or an effect without a cause. In my opinion, this makes no sense and a radium atom or roulette wheel has nothing to do with free will.

The brain is a self-programmed computer, programmed by experience and inputs from the senses, upbringing and training/education. It's driving force is survival (and possibly "happiness"), and part of survival is getting along with other people/animals. This results in herd instincts in animals, customs and laws in humans.

So, I'm thinking that "free will" is making decisions to act or not act on "unconscious impulses" based on this "programming", with nothing random about it.

(IMHO)

"... In my opinion, this makes no sense and a radium atom or roulette wheel has nothing to do with free will....."

.

I would agree with you that a roulette wheel has no free will. I think most people would agree. No confusion there, the which is exactly why I brought it up.

Going further, computer programs can make decisions based on programing with impulses that are tcgfc66commonly considered to be conscious. I believe most people would say today's programs do not demonstrate having free will.in

An individual persons "programming" is not done exclusively by that individual. I don't even think most of the programming is self-programming. The early foundational programming certiainly wasn't consciously devloped and installed.

Check out this link:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/01/facebook-shuts-robots-invent-language/

Hmm...!

Interesting. Are you auggesting creativity (generation of useful novelty) implies consciousness or perhaps free-will?

I would like to point out a phenomenon here. Especially with analog, the lines between "boundaries" (black/white) can become indiscernible. People have a hard time dealing with that. Perhaps this is why quantum physics got popular; It's a way to avoid that "problem". But with analog, you can have elements of both "ingredients" at the same time, to exist in that "blurry state" (not purely inert, and not purely "alive").

The Turing test comes into play here.

The recent software purportedly passing the Turing test seems to be more indicative of flaws in thr test rather than reaching a point when software is consciously thinking.

I don't believe fooling 30% of panelists during a 5 minute keyboard interaction that the software is infact a 13 year old boy is the same as foing 30% of panelists during a 5 minute interaction that thr software is in fact human. A 13 year old boy thinks about as much like an actual (adult) human as a crysalis flies through the air like an actual (adult) butterfly.

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am simply stating that every logical binary step that the computers took was in the initial programming. The computers had no free will, they were simply doing as they were programmed. It is an illustration of unintended consequences by the programmers, not a suggestion that the computers pulled the instructions out of thin air. With sufficient intelligent analysis and information, all steps in the series of events can be revealed.

posted in error

Wait, what was posted in error? 76?

84 Was posted in error...I have stopped whipping a dead horse.

(Unsubscribe)

Horse? i thought it was dead whores that you weren't supposed to beat.

I suppose beating either isn't all that effective, but who is it hurting, really? Seems like a more appropriate admonition would be on beating things that are alive. In fact if you just have to beat something, it would probably be better to pick one of the dead things available.

Poor Will, he gets so confused at times.

Benjamin Libet performed an experiment that consisted of volunteers watching a rotating clock indicator and deciding at some time to perform an action. The volunteers' brainwaves were monitored and when they decided to perform the action, they noted the clock position.

The result was that Libet discovered a "readiness potential" in the volunteers' brain waves that occurred about 200 milliseconds before they reported making the decision. This indicated that the conscious brain was not responsible for the decision, but only took credit after the fact, thus calling into question the existence of "free will".

"Methods[edit]

Researchers carrying out Libet’s procedure would ask each participant to sit at a desk in front of the oscilloscope timer. They would affix the EEG electrodes to the participant’s scalp, and would then instruct the subject to carry out some small, simple motor activity, such as pressing a button, or flexing a finger or wrist, within a certain time frame. No limits were placed on the number of times the subject could perform the action within this period.

Libet's experiment:
0 repose
1 (-500 ms) EEG measures Readiness potential
2 (-200 ms) Person notes the position of the dot when decides
3 ( 0 ms) Act

During the experiment, the subject would be asked to note the position of the dot on the oscilloscope timer when "he/she was first aware of the wish or urge to act" (control tests with Libet's equipment demonstrated a comfortable margin of error of only -50 milliseconds). Pressing the button also recorded the position of the dot on the oscillator, this time electronically. By comparing the marked time of the button's pushing and the subject's conscious decision to act, researchers were able to calculate the total time of the trial from the subject's initial volition through to the resultant action. On average, approximately two hundred milliseconds elapsed between the first appearance of conscious will to press the button and the act of pressing it.

Researchers also analyzed EEG recordings for each trial with respect to the timing of the action. It was noted that brain activity involved in the initiation of the action, primarily centered in the secondary motor cortex, occurred, on average, approximately five hundred milliseconds beforethe trial ended with the pushing of the button. That is to say, researchers recorded mounting brain activity related to the resultant action as many as three hundred milliseconds before subjects reported the first awareness of conscious will to act. In other words, apparently conscious decisions to act were preceded by an unconscious buildup of electrical activity within the brain - the change in EEG signals reflecting this buildup came to be called Bereitschaftspotential or readiness potential. As of 2008, the upcoming outcome of a decision could be found in study of the brain activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 7 seconds before the subject was aware of their decision.^[7]

Implications of Libet's experiments[edit]

Libet's experiments suggest to some^[8] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."^[9]

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"^[10][11]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

"If we accept that every action has an equal and opposite reaction,the it follows that every action is preceded by an equal and opposite reaction."

Balderdash <unsubscribe>

You are certainly free to choose what you feed your mind(as far as free will goes).

Thinking outside the box is a take it or leave it choice.

You assume that the action determines the reaction and conclude predetermination, however, any action following any other action is not deterministic. What the change will be down to the tiniest detail can only be determined after the fact of it being, and so any knowledge of the reacion, if there is one, must be sought out, traced back, and seen to be caused by whatever the action was in the first place. Who looked and what were they looking for?

"Seek and ye shall find" Is finding a reaction to the looking? What caused the looking?

(Pinapple Surf and a glass of 7 deadly Zins)

Imagine a billiard table with 15 balls. A video playback of the break is easy to analyze the movement of each ball.

Increase the number to 1000 and it becomes more complicated,but feasible.

Increase further to 1 million,and it becomes even more difficult.

Increase to trillions it becomes presently impossible,but the initial action is still responsible for all of the movements,and even though each ball goes it's own direction,it's direction was determined by a previous collision.

Now imagine that eventually each of these balls strikes another set of balls,that also scatter.

The sequence of these collisions is possible to analyze,given enough information and analytical power,but is presently not possible.

As for the butterfly effect,it simply illustrates the present limitations of our abilities to totally analyze a very large number of events.

With sufficient information,the butterfly could be traced back to the cocoon,egg,or parents and family tree,etc.

It isn't merely the ability to process all the various interactions of all particles. To be be able to look into the future or past from any point, you would need to know the specific total condition at a point in time, the composition, position, velocity, vibration in each degree of freedom, excitation, etc of every particle in the system. (Your billiard balls aren't neatly racked, they are already flying around the table when you decide the game should start. ) As measuring things like that will require introduction into the system of new arrangements of particles certain to alter the state of the original particles being measured, it may not be feasible to accurately know what would be necessary about it very particle in a large system at one specific time.

Beyond that there are excited states for which time of relaxation from is not knowable for a specific particle, but rather only statistically from a group.

You can't know it all with enough certainty...

The breaking of the billiard balls in a perfect world could be determined, but we don't live in a perfect world...there are flaws, bits of dust, little bugs, misalignment errors, air movement, vibration and a host of other "quantum effects" that will skew the results of that perfect model....

This is something mathematicians and other modelers seem to ignore in order to try and make sense out of things...and predict the future, which never works out....

Certainly there are microscopic and even smaller factors that influence larger things.Just like a sequence of dominoes beginning small,and knocking down much larger and larger ones as time progresses.And with millions of fractal branches,it may not be presently possible to find the first domino,but that does not mean it will never be possible.

Every effect has a cause.

The double slit experiment changes when it is observed,vs when it is not observed.

How is it observed? A photon or some other type of energy must be used to observe it,and this may be why the difference occurs.Energy is added or subtracted due to the observation.How can one observe and gain information in some way that will not affect the outcome?

Just my opinion,and I could be wrong.You know what they say about opinions.

HiTek: You are correct.

Universe is fully of these actions but organized. However, actions are limited by domains and laws; not (all) actions are spontaneous.

I posted a very similar thought a while back and yes, you immediately get people telling you it's rubbish. What I would say is that I was once told that just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A dog cannot read Shakespeare but that doesn't mean his books don't exist.

I personally don't see how someone can say I choose to do something at random therefore this theory is wrong. The theory itself states that you were predetermined to think that you were doing something at random and now it has happened. I find it difficult to believe that is the case but I can appreciate it may be true...just like religion.

In regard to freedom of action,I contend that we have an illusion of free will,but limited.For instance, we can choose what we please from a vending machine,but we are still limited by the contents of the machine.

We are likewise limited by our meager senses.

We are composed of Baryonic matter,which is a very small percentage of all matter in the universe.

WE are the ghost in the machine.We understand only a fraction of existence.

An ant crawling on the desert may think that the universe is made of sand,unaware of the bigger picture.

We are likewise limited by our visible universe,unaware of any "outside" forces that may control our actions.

We choose an item from a vending machine because that is what we choose,but there is evidence now that bacteria in the gut influence our decisions about food choices.

Such small things,influencing the larger body.

We are still limited,however, by the contents of the machine.

You are free to choose(within certain limits) anyone's version of reality and it would be hubris of me to challenge it,likewise the opposite.

After all,we cannot see reality through an other's eyes.

We most certainly can and do see the universe through another's eyes. Read a novel. That will present to you an alternate universe through a third or fourth person's eyes. If this is too removed for you to grasp, read today's news from a foreign land. That will present to you the same universe through another's eyes. If this still does not satisfy you then consider how you amicably settled a disagreement with another. At first, each saw the same incident from a completely different perspective but eventually, a new perspective(s) was forged that all parties could agree too.

As for free will, to me, this seems more like a philosophical or legal question than anything about Physics, Cosmology, or Engineering. Here's a final question to ponder. Can criminal liability exist without free will?

When you read a novel,you are simply getting another's perspective on his experiences,real or imagined.

You are not actually seeing the world through their eyes,only through their interpretation of events,which is influenced by their ability to put it into words.

It is not the same thing.

Can you accurately describe a color to a person that has been blind since birth?

Sure,you can describe the color red as warm or hot,but their idea of color from your description may be entirely different;it must be if they have never seen any colors before.

We generally agree on the names of colors because that is what we are taught,but we do not really know what another person actually sees.

Men and women see the color green differently,hence the need for tint adjustment on the old NTSC tv's. No matter where a man set the tint,his wife would disagree.

Check out the color of the dress in my link above.What color do you see?

Whatever color you see,I cannot argue with it.You see what you see,unique and personal.

A lot of arguments are settled because one or both parties simply get tired of fighting or arguing.

If you cannot grasp the subtlety of these differences that is okay.

Not everyone can understand it.

I see, you are a nihilist with an ego. You also believe that true sight and particularly true color can only be perceived by your own retinal cones and rods. As for the famous dress optical illusion, I prefer this classic illusion from the Wikipedia page on the Philosophy of perception.

Which square is darker, A or B?

But wait, for me to know both what you would perceive and what you will be actually looking at wouldn't I have to know what you see, through your own eyes and how your brain would process it?

I never presumed that all arguments are settled amicably. Quite the contrary, I stipulated the types of disagreements that end friendly. I'm annoyed that you refuse to contemplate them. I guess by ignoring my point you implicitly acknowledge my perspective that these amicable disagreements end with a mutual insight of the others view. You do see. That is your free will.

I have not ignored your opinion,in fact,I have simply stated that your view is as true as anyone else's.

I do not insist that my perception is the true,one-and-only reality.

It is simply my opinion.

I also stated that I could be mistaken.

You,however,seem to insist that your way is the only way to see things,without any possibility of being wrong.

More is the pity.

I could agree with you,but then we would both be wrong.

I see. You claim to see my perspective while dismissing it as wrong. For good measure you add an ad hominem slight as if it would reinforce your opinion. I understand and therefore see through your eyes, including this.

What you mistake as my insistence to prove you as wrong is itself wrong. I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am demonstrating that others can see things through another's eyes. That communication does not have to be flawlessly executed but the fact that information, a perspective, a vision gets transferred from one individual to another demonstrates that one can see through another's eyes. In fact the very act of declaring a perspective to be "wrong" demonstrates an acknowledgement of receiving that vision.

I acknowledged that I could be wrong,but you have not,and consider the possibility to be a personal attack.

Imagining another's point of view is not the same as seeing it through their eyes.

You have missed my point entirely,and you cannot grasp the difference,and until you do, you will never understand.

Whatever you say from this point on is okay with me.

Have a nice day!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

I see that you insist on choosing only one definition of "see", when it suits you. Language is not static. Words, particularly commonly used words do not have one immutable definition.

I also see your implication that one and only one perspective to be correct while all others are wrong. I do not care who, if anyone, is right or wrong. I believe in this discussion, right and wrong is an unnecessary, superfluous construct. I am demonstrating that visions can be exchanged albeit never flawlessly. A flawed transfer is still a transfer nonetheless.

Speaking about the transfer of vision, what do you think about how that color blind individual now sees color? He doesn't see how I see color but I do see how he sees color.

Bees and other insects see in UV,but most people cannot.We understand the term UV but we cannot actually "see" it.It is possible to grasp the idea,but not the actual image itself.We can translate it with various methods into a spectrum that we can see,but it is merely a "shadow" of what the bee sees.

By "see" I mean the translation by the brain of the information sent by the optic nerves.

We can take X rays of things,but the images are merely shadows.

An idea can be communicated,but not the personal experience of the idea.

The statement "I see your point" is an idea,not an actual experience.

I am not sufficiently equipped to explain it any further if you do not understand it by now,so I see no point in whipping a dead horse.

It is important to you to be right,so okay,you are right.Feel better now?

Have a nice day.

Exit 0

A) "... I have simply stated that your view is as true as anyone else's..."

B) "... You are not actually seeing the world through their eyes,only through their interpretation of events,which is influenced by their ability to put it into words. ...."

For both A and B to be true, it seems that everyone' would have to possess exactly the same ability to put their interpretation of events into words.

"We generally agree on the names of colors because that is what we are taught,but we do not really know what another person actually sees".

Very true. People can argue about wavelength etc, but that misses the point of perception. I'd like to meet Mary when she gets out of the b/w room.

I would like to submit another "no-way/controversial" idea.

1) Science relies on what can be proved/observed/replicated. Therefore, it tends to reject proof of things that can't be observed. But, consciousness is subjective, and is therefore "filtering" any objective conclusions observed scientifically.
2) Quantum physics is based on a thing called "quanta". A quanta has the property of being "all or nothing"; you can't reduce it any farther. On the other hand, analog is based on a continuous flow of things; infinitely reducible and blendable with other values.
From this, I want to make some observations that my subjective consciousness has made.
1) If you consider "free-will" and "manifestations of free-will" to be separate entities, You might find that the first one is not observable, and the second one is. That perspective might change current conclusions already made. Some say free-will doesn't exist. I think their argument is just a logical illusion and needs rethinking. I posit that the lack of any manifestation of free-will does not mean it does not exist. I think free-will/consciousness can exist without any manifestation of it to observe. Therefore it escapes objective scientific analysis.
2) A quanta that has the property of being "all or nothing" is in opposition to being in two states at the same time. However, analog existence allows for a blend of values. For instance, on a scale of black or white, analog can have an infinite number of values of both black and white. This is more conducive to allowing two states to exist at the same time. If it is possible for two states to exist at the same time, it would be more likely to occur in analog than in quanta. I think quantum physicists are in error when they say EVERYTHING is quantum. Infinity has room for quanta, but quanta has no room for infinity.