Problems with materialism

[SteveA]

A typical view in modern science is that consciousness somehow arises from physical interactions and that free "will" is an illusion.

I'd like to point out some generally overlooked problems with such a perspective (not that many better alternatives are out there):

1) If the universe has taken eons of time, since the (assumed) Big Bang to reach this moment in which I can lift my hand, then it would be just as valid to say that the universe was predetermined since (a vague) "beginning" of time to allow me to raise my hand.

So the same belief in predestination that caused Einstein to say that people are as fixed in their orbits as stars, is also the same predestination that says the stars are as subject to conscious desires as the motion of ones own body.

(A more realistic perspective might allow conscious will to operate within physical confines and subject to feedback by physical effects - for example, my conscious will can lift my hand, but not with the same physical effect if my hand is asleep or carrying a 50 lb. weight)

2) The influence of conscious will also appears required by science, if there is to be some value or merit to science.

As an example, let's say hypothetically that we've discovered all the laws of physics and that the "clockwork" view of the universe is correct and that we've completed sampling the physical states of most everything in the universe and we have a machine that can effectively predict the future that will arise from the currently observed state of the universe.

Now someone 'runs the program' and, let's say they discover they're going to win millions in a lottery a couple years from now, but die in a car accident shortly afterwards.

Obviously a protest to such a fate might occur and the individual may decide not to drive after winning the lottery, ah, but if we've truly nailed down the laws of physics and correctly sampled the state of all influencial components of the universe, then the person could neither win the lottery sooner, nor avoid dying the subsequent car accident.

So is such a clockwork view of the universe particularly useful (assuming such is even possible)? No. You're already going to inevitably experience events anyway. There would similarly be no reason not to build such a machine as whether or not it was constructed would be fated under such a physical system.

In other words, there's utility to such a universal model - no choices from a selection of events with a diverse range of subjective values is available.

If we're to assume the physical sciences provide a benefit and are empowering then the implicit assumption must exist that knowledge gained by such a system of science instead provides results in the form "If you choose to do A then X will result. If you choose to do B then Y will result and if you choose something else, then something else will likely result", or similarly such a system of science should allow the computation of how to achieve a desired result, so in that case we desire to create Z and then via. science we determine that action C must be taken.

There are also many mechanisms by which conscious will can influence physical systems beyond an ability for physical measurement to predict. Claims to the contrary have remained invalid. One of the most problematic elements to any argument for pure materialism is that the person making the argument is simply arguing with themself in their own brain.

There is no immediate manner to distinguish between subjective and objective views as there is no separate "objective channel" by which people see the universe and all experiences are filtered through a single conscious (and inherently subjective) window, so from that perspective materialism could be seen as quite accurate in that there only needs to exist a single viewpoint and material and non-material views are equally verifiable (it's just a matter of semantics).

If we add any artificial separations beyond this, then in order to do this, we need information to distinguish what processes are mental versus physical (or maybe we can make "random" assignments, if that is possible) - but then it once again appears rather arbitrary in selecting which subjective perceptions are actually objective.

Notice that relativity inherently contains a problem with making "local observations". The only information available at some observation point in spacetime is that which reaches you at lightspeed. Due to the fact that you can't move faster than lightspeed, you're forever stuck seeing only what's "here" and not what's actually "out there" - the specific path through spacetime of even a single photon is unpredictable because physical observations are effectively left waiting to collide with an unseen photon. The same goes for quantum mechanics in that only statistical distributions are determined and no physical certainty in the results is allowed.

Consider this experiment:

We have a detector that (we initially assume) can distinguish between 2 wavelengths of photons (in reality, single photons do not contain wavelength information, but let's find out why).

Let's assume we place this detector in front of a light source and proceed to detect 10 class A photons (versus the alternate detectable class B).

Now as long as we never question the validity of an experience or memory/knowledge etc., then there is never uncertainty and things happened precisely as we believe/think they did without the possibility of anything else having happened. This is certain knowledge and likely as tangibly real and scientific as you could possibly get - it's also ironically the extreme of subjectivity.

But all the additional context in the above experiment regarding detectors, wavelengths, emittors (and implicitly space itself) is not immediately verified in an objective sense by the existance of a memory of 10 "class A" experiences.

For example, how do we know that our detector is working as believed? The light source could have emitted both A and B class events, but our detector only received the A class events? In order to know what the detector is (or what properties the detector possesses) we need to characterize its response, so might proceed to attempt to calibrate it using some (once again) believed (truly "correct") uniform source of A and B events.

How do we locate such a source? We also need a detector capable of uniformly measuring such events in order to verify such uniformity. Let's just quickly say we believe there exists such a standard and we desire to use it to verify the operation of our detector.

To get down to the bare nuts and bolts, even assuming we have such a standard believed to be accurate, we still need to interact with it in space and this requires additional photons to detect and align the emitter and detector in space (with additional questions regarding confidence involved) and these extend beyond the original 10 measured class A events that provide additional statistical qualifications to their measurements.

In other words, in order to know anything beyond the existance of the initial 10 identical events, we need the information provided by additional events to become a context of interpretation and not be considered part of the experiment itself - but which events are not influencial to the results of the experiment? If we wanted such a decision to not be subjective, we'd once again need another (third) source of information to tell us which experiement was the reference and which was the result - of the course the same problem arises in deciding which of these, now 3, classes of information to use as the deciding factor in determining which of the other two was control versus result and this continues on with uncertainty, ad infinitum, because uncertainty or randomness and indeterminism is irreducible once it's been added to a system.

In the end, the most tangible scientific and certain view possible is ironically not objective, but the subjective first person view that includes whatever beliefs and assumptions are made regarding the context in which all this information is interpreted.

Though there may be something more certain than ones own existance, I surely can't think of a more solid platform to build physical science (so instead of "discovering" after the fact in quantum mechanics that the observer is a part of the system, this should instead be a premise upon which physics is built) and, as shown above, in order for science to possess and merit or value to its construction, it inherently needs to also assume that conscious will and values are the forces that mold and shape it for a purpose (science is physical artistic creation on steroids and mathematician are mental sculptors - they're processes of both discovery and creation - fundamental reality appears to be rooted in irreducible logical structures which are consciously manipulateable, but still subject to logical limits - if you deny the limitations, then "everything exists" which ironically appears as influence and distinguishable as nothing specific at all - if you remain within the limits, then your creations are timeless and adhere to an order and exist as specific "things", for better or worse).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Good post. I'm not sure but maybe this will shed some light… or not:

Freedom
Or
“The Final Laws of the World”

Laplace thought that a ‘demon’, knowing all, could predict all turns of events. So, one could simply compute the data and foretell the future, this becoming known as “social physics”, that which could ever uncover the order behind the motions of humans.

The novelist, George Elliot, who was really Mary Anne Evans, railed against these fixed notions of Laplace, suggesting that while some general directions might be predetermined, there was still a freedom to be within this larger constraint, and, as such, a meaningful part of the will was free to make a life—because the mind was “not cut in marble”. Her novels reflected this theme.

She wanted to be ‘a scientific poet; her loving partner wished to be ‘a poet in science’. They, a perfect match, found a love that “defies all calculations”.

In one of her novels, some sullen gamblers awaited their luck or not by the turn of the wheel or what was the lay of the cards. But then there was, too, a lively vivacious lady there whose outlook was full of creative promise.

Some thought that Darwin’s revelations made for nothing more than a meaningless life built on the edifice of randomness. Well, evolution by natural selection did do this, really, but Mary Ann read this as the very road to freedom, for it removed the fixedness of destiny from science and even from the all-knowing demon, not to mention God. Random variations made life’s narrative unknowable.

Then came the chaos of entropy. This disorder was real, and it was even increasing. Pure entropy couldn’t be solved, for not even the demon could know everything. It also came out that physical laws were really only approximations.

Later, of course, after Mary Anne’s time, came the discovery of the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics, this being a fundamental trait of nature.

Then neurogenesis was found, the formation of new neurons during one’s life to be used as they may, increasing the already malleable properties of the brain that could reform its marbles.

Even DNA is seen to vary from the noise within cells. Plus, genes do not always express themselves equally. Genetics directs, but it does not precisely predict.

While no one wishes for completely random decisions, it is our purposelessness that lets us make a life for ourselves with the meanings that we can choose within our form.

We are the equations without an answer. We solve ourselves. We are free to be, for there are no strings attached. Luck, or not, can be made by us.

(Napoleon, who nearly took over the world, fired Laplace after he had only worked for six weeks.)

Or, who knows, but, just in case, one might not just sit back to await the determined reign of fate.

[SteveA]

Good post. I'm not sure but maybe this will shed some light… or not:

Freedom
Or
“The Final Laws of the World”

Laplace thought that a ‘demon’, knowing all, could predict all turns of events. So, one could simply compute the data and foretell the future, this becoming known as “social physics”, that which could ever uncover the order behind the motions of humans.

The novelist, George Elliot, who was really Mary Anne Evans, railed against these fixed notions of Laplace, suggesting that while some general directions might be predetermined, there was still a freedom to be within this larger constraint, and, as such, a meaningful part of the will was free to make a life—because the mind was “not cut in marble”. Her novels reflected this theme.

She wanted to be ‘a scientific poet; her loving partner wished to be ‘a poet in science’. They, a perfect match, found a love that “defies all calculations”.

In one of her novels, some sullen gamblers awaited their luck or not by the turn of the wheel or what was the lay of the cards. But then there was, too, a lively vivacious lady there whose outlook was full of creative promise.

Some thought that Darwin’s revelations made for nothing more than a meaningless life built on the edifice of randomness. Well, evolution by natural selection did do this, really, but Mary Ann read this as the very road to freedom, for it removed the fixedness of destiny from science and even from the all-knowing demon, not to mention God. Random variations made life’s narrative unknowable.

Then came the chaos of entropy. This disorder was real, and it was even increasing. Pure entropy couldn’t be solved, for not even the demon could know everything. It also came out that physical laws were really only approximations.

Later, of course, after Mary Anne’s time, came the discovery of the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics, this being a fundamental trait of nature.

Then neurogenesis was found, the formation of new neurons during one’s life to be used as they may, increasing the already malleable properties of the brain that could reform its marbles.

Even DNA is seen to vary from the noise within cells. Plus, genes do not always express themselves equally. Genetics directs, but it does not precisely predict.

While no one wishes for completely random decisions, it is our purposelessness that lets us make a life for ourselves with the meanings that we can choose within our form.

We are the equations without an answer. We solve ourselves. We are free to be, for there are no strings attached. Luck, or not, can be made by us.

(Napoleon, who nearly took over the world, fired Laplace after he had only worked for six weeks.)

Or, who knows, but, just in case, one might not just sit back to await the determined reign of fate.

Thank you much for your reply. Yes, the 'demon' you reference sounds identical to some of my comments.

On one (expansive) hand there could be seen a predetermination involved - you (and I) can be nothing other than what we are, if we go beyond any finite period of time and space and properties to include everything possible thing that defines each of us, but of course, until what we are is known (if such is possible), this is just hypothetical musing.

I'm personally quite certain that conscious experiences extend beyond being solely witnessable in a physical manner (for example, there appears no manner to physically describe the qualities of conscious perceptions - in terms of information, I could reply with a million yes or no answer to a rock as to what vanilla smells like, but if it doesn't already have the capability to smell it, it wouldn't matter how long I tried to describe the sensation, I couldn't and showing MRI scans or measuring neural impulses doesn't convey the information either).

So it's rather easy for someone to at least recognize the possibility of immaterial things as they already possess conscious experiences indescribable in physical terms. We point to a common object and, for example, cross associate a visual experience with an auditory one ("This apple is red"), but the truth is that to what extent these experiences are the same or differ appears unknowable. There was an experiment performed with a pigeon (yes, it's always some poor animal isn't it?) raised with glasses that inverted visual up and down. The vision grew up quite normally and could fly and eat etc. ... until they took the glasses off, in which case the pigeon took weeks to relearn how to interact with the now "rightside up" world, so someone could easily perceive left and right reversed and function entirely normally or perceive colors as textures (synesthetics are interesting) etc.

It also appears quite expectable that time itself hides at least one dimension of properties of an object, which is only revealed over time (for example, though we might consider apples to be 3 dimensional, we truly only interact with a 2 dimensional surface, if that, at any specific moment and it's a process of mental learning that allows us later to infer the existance of depths behind viewed surfaces - in fact, to be a bit overly technical, I don't think we fundamentally even interact with complete 2 dimensional surfaces but instead that the physical universe is perceived by a string of fundamentally 1 dimensional conscious perceptions over time that we "fold" over time into higher dimensional properties by witnessing repetitions and correlations in the information, but that's a bit outside this discussion).

So, though in some abstract sense, I am what I am and should expect or desire to be nothing else - and I have no "will" from that perspective and I'm fated to be whatever I am, from any "lower dimensional" or small subset of properties describing me, then there exists more that defines me and those properties can be potentially witnessed in, for example, a purely physical subset, that does not fully describe me over a finite period of time (I don't know if an infinite quantity of time would suffice ... that would be an interesting question).

And of course, if we took materialism literally then it's just as easy to say that the universe was constructed to evolve in a progression over time that allowed individuals to act as they do now, so cause and effect relationship between conscious will and physical laws and objects would become a single indistinguishable object.

If you make:

physical object -> conscious object

Well the conscious objects are all that are experienced, so only those physical objects that result in conscious objects are perceived as "real" and hence this becomes:

physical object = conscious object

or similarly:

physical object <-> conscious object

The "reality", as I interprete it is that there exist conscious perceptions of various conscious objects, for which a subset are denoted as being external physical objects.

From that perspective, the physical world is described by an informationally smaller set of conscious experiences and knowledge and that knowledge and experiences extend beyond the physical and I would assume the same is true for other people (including material scientists! ).

It may be (and likely there would be no proof otherwise) that ultimately there is a program that computes everything, including my actions (though I don't know how the qualities of conscious perceptions could be described in algorithmic terms - it would seem I'd innately be required to possess them and, for various other reasons, likely an unlimited number of potential distinct conscious perceptions as well - because it appears time is required to be infinite/unbounded and this would require an infinite ability for distinct perceptions to exist - and those conscious qualities would likely be some innate part of myself. Of course the same would apply to other people, though potentially with some other set or permutation of qualities of conscious perceptions), but if unless all the results of this program are known at once, then it's a manner of revelation experiencing those results and we have living experiences with uncertainty.

Notice another paradox here:

Assume for a moment that there exists some point in the future in which you could always predict future events. For example, some permanent neural implant allows you to know exactly what will occur "tomorrow" (admittedly vague).

The paradox is that what you'd know "tomorrow" would be what you'd know the "tomorrow after tomorrow" and that would what you'd know the day after that etc. So, unless this chain was broken, having perfect knowledge of the future contains a paradox in that it appears you'd instantly know everything and have no ability to see any specific durations of time (sort of the timeless knowledge view).

It may be that even breaking this chain at some point doesn't invalidate the paradox, but I'm not certain on that.

Anyway, it appears safe, for now to say that conscious free will exists and has measurable influences on the physical world. If conscious will is just an illusion, then it likely ends up that the entire universe is also an illusion . The primary question for physics is to what extent and in what manner do external influences mold or arbitrate the outcome of ones conscious actions, but not over whether or not conscious will exists as a physical force (I'm not trying to claim that mere wishful thinking, prayer or random speculation has much utility - though some people have claimed otherwise).

Thanks again for your reply.

[austintorn@aol.com]

…we truly only interact with a 2 dimensional surface, if that, at any specific moment and it's a process of mental learning that allows us later to infer the existance of depths behind viewed surfaces

Yes, for images are only 2D on the retina, the depth being filled in soon, but later, by the visual system.


A story…

“Eye test time, Growbeard” said the ninth degree Grand Master.

“Shuteye time,” protested Graybeard.

“Please read line bottom of chart”.

“Printed by Acuvision 2005.”

“You have good eye.”

“Two, two eyes—do you think I lost one as a pirate?”

“No, sorry Grayman. Please close ears—what see?”

“I see you are going to end up in the ICU!”

“Now-now, Greatbeard. We teach you mind’s eye.”

“Ok, I’ll see you I to eye.”

“That better. Still seeing mermaid?”

“We broke up—fin-ished, due to my imminent death.”

“Be friend—we teach you seeing in dark.”

“I already have x-ray vision—and why is your underwear so ragged? What if you have to go to the hospital, like real soon!”

“You fine sight full of seaweed, but good eye too.”

“Two eyes.”

“I give you four eyes.”

“I don’t need glasses.”

“What if TOE scientist woman blind since birth named Mary regain sight—know she what color banana is?”

“Well, I thought not, and since I know her, I tried to trick her and showed her a blue banana…”

“She say not banana.”

“How do you know that?”

“While blind she knew EVERYTHING about banana!”

“Well, I’ll be darned. Teach me more.”

“See you woman on moon?”

“See you later.”

[austintorn@aol.com]

NOT MUCH FREE WILL PERHAPS?

Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts
Control you? Could you, silly as it seems,
Just be falling, hook and line, for your thoughts?
Think about it—thoughts may tell you the answer!

The brain’s decisions are determined by
Memories, associations, and
Learned behaviors right up to the instant;
So—our decisions seem predetermined.

The “free” in free will has no real meaning,
Unless we take it to mean random, that
One’s will depends on nothing but dice rolls;
What good would such a brain be anyway?

Can you start or stop your thoughts? In other words,
Can you will that which does the willing? Try it.
Oops, a surprise thought just came from the blue;
You did not will it—the will is unfree!

A mind is perhaps many little minds,
Each a simpleton awaiting control,
Such as when we eat, socialize, or fight,
None of them very complex at all.

The brain, with its hundred billion nerve cells,
Does all of our decision-analysis,
Only making its results known, at the last,
To the mind’s highest level: consciousness.

People act, robot-like, since they know not
The why of what they do, for decisions
Are made blind, by brain networks, just before
They’re presented to us in consciousness.

Consciousness comes three hundred milliseconds
After the brain does its analysis,
And, thus, has but last-second veto power,
If any, over what the brain comes up with.

Decisions are not made by consciousness,
Although, this fine picture in the mind’s ’I’,
Merely the brain’s perception of itself,
Is fed back whole for future reference.

Not much of what the brain does reaches
Consciousness, and even when it does,
The mind’s last to know; it’s just a tourist—
For decisions precede their awareness.

First-level people have beliefs and desires,
But second-level people can have beliefs
And desires about their beliefs and desires,
Becoming able spectators of themselves.

Although our decisions of the instant are
Fully determined, and are therefore not free,
We may happen to learn something new—and make
Choices tomorrow we wouldn’t make today.

Thoughts good and bad come and go, as the brain
Looks at itself without assigning values.
Still, lucky that others can’t read our minds,
’Though forbidden thoughts are normal and sane.

We fall for our thoughts, hook, line, and sinker:
Conditioned responses, reflexes, or
Overwhelming emotions, spurious,
Or ancient, planted by evolution.

Let reactions sail on by—just observe them,
But don’t act on them. This puts some distance
Between you and your conditioned response,
A space which grants a modicum of free will.

When extreme thoughts arrive, uninvited, as
Most thoughts do, we veto them, saying “don’t”,
For while we can never will that which does
The unconscious willing, we have some “free won’t”.

Many are robots, but no one notices
Since there are so many different kinds,
Which, though making life quite interesting,
Obscures the fact that the will is unfree.

[SB_UK]

Many are robots, but no one notices
Obscures the fact that the will is unfree.

Unfree - ** (state of mind I)
Less Unfree - * (state of mind II)

The awareness at * is of dislike for the state of mind at **.
Only once approaching * does the question arise
- the question of whether we have free will.

It'd be dumb for us to be upset by some aspect of reality over which we might never have power to control.
We're not actually discussing the switch from
Absolute Not Free Will -> Absolute Free Will
here -
- simply a relative change from

Unfree Will -> Less Unfree Will

(We aren't programmed to see it this way -
the feeling which you'll have in mind will be of the aspiration to achieve Absolute Free Will

Our Absolute Free Will though cannot be anything other than Effectively Absolute Free Will (to our mind) -
representing only Less Unfree Will (on a closer to true Absolute scale).

The question (of whether we have free will) arises because the individual is striving to attain * - and a great mechanism for ensuring motivation for arrival at * is to engender feelings of {distaste,hatred,imprisonment} for/by **.

So - exactly as @@@ writes -
- two states of mind.

State * arises after ** (with education -)
- think of it as the mind undergoing conformational change when the body of information and associative connections formed between the information
within an individual's mind
exceeds the carrying capacity of the former structure -
- drives conformational change into the novel structure.

The older structure (the animal mind, mind of infant) undergoes change into the mind (which can be recognized because it is characterized by wisdom).

(The real biochemical/psychological basis to wisdom).

The change is triggered by hormonal changes in one's mid-30's -
- between man and woman (man and wife) together (as one) -
feeding nicely into the biological imperative for pair-bonding (observed in many species
- and not just man).

(ref: ADDForums::Stabile)

- with the choice of word
pair-bonding
alongside the bonds of physics and chemistry -
being the giveaway
(the connection between reality and ToE)

-> representing similar geometric 'ideals' on differing abstraction layers.

lower -> higher (abstraction layers).
physics -> chemistry -> psychology

Each stair has a horizontal and a vertical surface -
the geometry is shared -
the sole difference being that the 3rd stair is above the second
... is above the first stair
(from the ground up) -
<- the idea of abstraction layers in evolution
(increases in complexity of an organism by order).

~*~

Summary
(in 1 line)

We can attain what we call 'free will'
- however what we call 'free will' is simply the end form perspective of a structure which began construction 30,000 years ago (at the speciation of man) -
- representing a state of mind which shifts wholly from first person (the animal mindset) into third person (the capacity for reflection)
- representing an evolution in the complexity of mind (which may occur during our lives if we understand the world around us) -
the mind
- as perfect synonym for the individual who you (when you think about yourself) is both thinking and thinking oneself to be.

Everything you know is mind -
- is the mind knowing
- the illusion that you are (foremost) a physical structure is just that -
- an illusion.

You're (foremost) a virtual structure.

The 'you' in 'you' is mind -
The 'you' when you state 'I' - refers unambiguously to your mind.

... ... ... and your mind is ** ->- a'changin' ->- *

Only once approaching * does the question arise
- the question of whether we have free will.

[SB_UK]

ooops!

colour coded

First-level people have beliefs and desires,
But second-level people can have ... ...

Unfree - ** (state of mind I)
Less Unfree - * (state of mind II)

... ... ~etc~ ... ...

[SteveA]

NOT MUCH FREE WILL PERHAPS?

Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts
Control you? Could you, silly as it seems,
Just be falling, hook and line, for your thoughts?
Think about it—thoughts may tell you the answer!

The brain’s decisions are determined by
Memories, associations, and
Learned behaviors right up to the instant;
So—our decisions seem predetermined.

The “free” in free will has no real meaning,
Unless we take it to mean random, that
One’s will depends on nothing but dice rolls;
What good would such a brain be anyway?

I agree that much of thought can be seen as habitual or random and there are many ways in which it could be modeled as a learning system driven by "external" stimuli, but some of these can also be seen as just assumptions without much reason for the assumptions being made.

Something else to consider would be over what state things would be in if there was no limit to the influence of a conscious will and over what mechanism would keep the paradox of having multiple such wills desire potentially different circumstances in a shared objective space (one person might "wish" for water to be wine, while another desires to swim in water and not wine ... and the problems of lottery payouts if everyone wanted to win at the same time! LOL).

Ultimately, I'd assume that everyone has a desire to be happy (or at least satisfied with their circumstances) and this could be seen similar to a force that motivates conscious action and though the origin of emotions appears beyond conscious construction, the specifics of what circumstances define such satisfaction don't appear completely beyond conscious influence.

Consider also what you specifically mean with the "random" reference above and can someone actually have knowledge of a purely random thing? There are multiple contexts to randomness.

I'd first assume anything that can randomly exist, must exist at least once. If something never existed, then it would instead be impossible.

Also, the purely random component itself may not be knowable. For example, if the position of some object is random, it should be interpreted as having no specific location and would possess no mass and not be witnessable as being specifically anywhere. It might be found one moment, but a coherent interaction with it within the context of some specific location in space would impossible to persist. In this sense, its "random" position would appear quite similar to having no position at all.

Notice also that randomness could be seen as a creative force constructing (or revealing, depending upon what perspective you take) new information over time.

If we take any finite system with a set of deterministic rules about how the system transitions occur, the system will ultimately repeat with some period of repetition assuming it's synchronized in time with our observations. If the system is not considered to be synchronized in time with our observations then we can have it appear as a "random" superposition of all of its states being "randomly" selected, quite similar to the collapse of a wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

But there would appear to still be a correlation in time between its state and our observations in that we detect it in some specific state and not a blur of all possible states - it can't change during the sampling and so some mechanism must effectively hold it stationary until we've observed the state.

For example, if I wrote a program to continually count and display the numbers on a computer. The program itself, detached of my observing it, does not necessarily generate numbers but is instead simply in a process of counting. If I decide at some point to look at the current count, the number could be said to possess "random" features, but it's not a perfectly random number. There are many ways in which I influence the selection of the number - 1) it cannot be a number larger than something I can comprehend. An ideal randomly selected integer out of all integers would almost certainly be larger than any astronomical numbers we could describe. 2) It also can't change state faster than my ability to detect such changes. So if the computer was displaying a billion counts per second, I'd be unable to visually determine what count was observed. Notice that two events entirely disconnected in time could be seen to change infinitely fast relative to each other and become a blurred superposition.


There are other details to an idealized randomness that appear to place restrictions on how it can operate

An idealized randomness can describe a uniform distribution. If x is a random value that can exist in 1 of n possible states, ideally there is no preferential bias in the selection of these, which could be interpreted in various ways

You mentioned I believe an ideal randomness is ultimately based upon a uniformity of some distribution - for the possibility that an event x can occur as 1 of n possibilities, an idealized randomness will ultimately.

Can you start or stop your thoughts? In other words,
Can you will that which does the willing? Try it.
Oops, a surprise thought just came from the blue;
You did not will it—the will is unfree!

I did not will to have no further will, though I did temporarily will to stop the stream of words and lo and behold, there was a pause, though wordless conscious perception continues and that would appear a requirement in order to know that time did pass in which no thoughts occured.

I believe I know what you're trying to point out here, but when we look at the realm of what's possible and not paradoxical, there's no obvious problem here.

As a sidenote: One problem I see is over the confidence of memory - it appears that memory, which would appear to basically define everything one considered as onesself could be alterable and likely not even consciously noticeable. The influence of memory appears almost absolute. I tend to think in terms of English words and concepts, but this is something I learned - hence I can assume that even the virtual sound of my thoughts arose from learning and these have progressed into an almost subconscious reflex, but something to consider is even those rather subconscious reflexes still had conscious oversight during their development, though if memory is not reliable then there's a big question mark involved, but without additional information there would seem no reason to doubt ones own memory.

A mind is perhaps many little minds,
Each a simpleton awaiting control,
Such as when we eat, socialize, or fight,
None of them very complex at all.

Not impossible.

The brain, with its hundred billion nerve cells,
Does all of our decision-analysis,
Only making its results known, at the last,
To the mind’s highest level: consciousness.

There's more to consider here as well. Though a single conscious experience can generally be described by a small amount of information, whereas the envisioned bandwidth of the brain is much larger, much of the information could be seen as redundant or "noisy" (maybe I should not say that as it implies an additional randomness when only a single source of randomness should be plenty able to construct all the rest).

Consider the problem of describing, informationally, what a conscious quality "feels like". For example, how much processing power or information would it take to describe the sensation of touching something soft?

This would appear to be impossible, so let's assume instead that we already have some forms of conscious perception available, though potentially a very large and diverse range of possible conscious qualities that we can detect and we specifically want to select "soft" out of this set.

If the set is very large, then a very large amount of information is required to select the specific element "soft".

If consciousness exists as a point within spacetime, then the information regarding conscious perceptions needs to be united at a single point and this could potentially be a very large amount of information in order to select specific conscious qualities out of a potentially unlimited set - now that's a possible reason that the ratio of physical events per conscious experience could appear to be so high, though in making that statement we could also ask whether or not we truly know that such large quantities of physical events occur outside our perception (expecting someone to believe that a large number of unobserved physical events occur outside our conscious ability to perceive them is not much different than asking someone to believe in a God that works behind the scenes creating the universe - then again, it may be that some measure of faith is required in attempting to understand anything at all).

[SteveA]

People act, robot-like, since they know not
The why of what they do, for decisions
Are made blind, by brain networks, just before
They’re presented to us in consciousness.

Consider still that what is currently habit at one point may have been a matter requiring conscious attention and learning.

Consciousness comes three hundred milliseconds
After the brain does its analysis,
And, thus, has but last-second veto power,
If any, over what the brain comes up with.

Though I agree with the general character of your description, there's a problem with knowing that this is true. If we interprete the brain to be a physical object, can a brain see itself? How can it know that it's doing something before it's finished doing something?

There are many paradoxes involved in trying to place the brain as a physical object that we can observe to describe the mechanisms by which thought occurs.

On the other hand, I'd agree that maintaining a mental/physical duality and trying to say that there are different realms in which physical and mental/conscious events occur is likely futile and fundamentally all perceptions occur in the same space.

But anyway, consider an experiment where some MRI scan is used to predict someones actions a couple seconds later, now what is the person watching the MRI scan actually seeing? If we assume that they're only seeing the external physical information that reaches their conscious ability to detect, then they're actually watching a virtual mental representation of the MRI and are themself delayed in their recognition.

Basically there are many problems with general current beliefs regarding consciousness and too many unknowns and paradoxes. I don't think we can truly see a brain in a physical sense, much like a computer screen is not a physical instance of the internet. You can create a lot of diagrams of networks or analyze information flow within it, but none of these are the containing structure itself.

Decisions are not made by consciousness,
Although, this fine picture in the mind’s ’I’,
Merely the brain’s perception of itself,
Is fed back whole for future reference.

Well it appears that at least some illusion of decision making and ability to act according to ones desires appears to exist, though there's instead a question over what creates desires and emotions, and I guess beyond that the question would simply be over what just simply creates?

So though I admit that I'd ultimately find it hard, if not impossible in some respect to turn down the advances of a cute and persistant enough lady, there still appears to be some measure of control over the timing and specific circumstances of my "defeat" . A more fundamental question to me is over why emotions exist as such a force in the first place and why I have specific beliefs over how my actions influence them.

Not much of what the brain does reaches
Consciousness, and even when it does,
The mind’s last to know; it’s just a tourist—
For decisions precede their awareness.

Actually I think you're referring to conscious perceptions only and that actually, in order to have a sense of self, some measure of influence with respect to the environment is required.

As an example, imagine seeing in some manner a raw representation of information in the brain, or let's expand that and say the entire universe. The state of every atom and galaxy or subatomic particle and photon etc. was immediately and instantly visible.

Now what significance does any of it have? If you spread it out on a piece of paper, is there any focal point or element of interest? Does it relate to you in any way ... what is "you"?

Notice that if conscious was simply a passive observer, then there's no specific manner in which consciousness could perceive itself as part of that which it's perceiving - it wouldn't see itself anywhere because it would have no influence over any of it - for example, it couldn't focus its attention on one thing in preference for something else. Notice that such a focusing of attention is not passive in a perceptual sense, but a motion and altering of density of the space being observed.

It's interesting to consider that the universe has many timeless characteristics and that time is subjective and reliant upon an observer to detect.

Observation can be objectively passive and leave the universe as a timeless object, yet subjectively create the experience of motion and change via. alterations in the weighting of its perceptions, much like shining light through a crystal does not require the crystal be inherently altered itself, yet the features of it can be indirectly observed via. motions of the light.

First-level people have beliefs and desires,
But second-level people can have beliefs
And desires about their beliefs and desires,
Becoming able spectators of themselves.

Although our decisions of the instant are
Fully determined, and are therefore not free,
We may happen to learn something new—and make
Choices tomorrow we wouldn’t make today.

I think there are at least a couple components to the illusion of lack of conscious control:

1) In order to know about something, some repetitive feature must be extractable regarding it. If a will exists that's not physically deterministic, then there is no physical mechanism by which it could be detected except as indeterminism. (As a sidenote, I think we're still far enough from being able to accurately predict the future that indeterminism has plenty of places left to exist )

2) Similarly, stable knowledge is founded upon stable logical relationships that are not conflicting and paradoxical. Growth due to accumulating memories and experience can create temporary incompatible beliefs as to their future predictions. Only one such possibility can ultimately be experienced and hence at least one such incompatible event must be experienced as not having existed.

These logical restrictions to knowledge can give a perception of creating impossibilities, but they could also be seen similar to making a choice - even though a conscious experience may be informationally large in some respects, you can still only do and experience one thing at a time (and I don't think a conscious coprocess would alter that either ).

Thoughts good and bad come and go, as the brain
Looks at itself without assigning values.
Still, lucky that others can’t read our minds,
’Though forbidden thoughts are normal and sane.

We fall for our thoughts, hook, line, and sinker:
Conditioned responses, reflexes, or
Overwhelming emotions, spurious,
Or ancient, planted by evolution.

Yes, that's one of the puzzles for me as well, why do emotions and desires exist and by what rules (for various reasons I assume there must be some logic behind emotion) do they "play"?

We can play with physics and logic all day long, but in the end their remains the question over the satisfaction with all these.

Let reactions sail on by—just observe them,
But don’t act on them. This puts some distance
Between you and your conditioned response,
A space which grants a modicum of free will.

I agree that being a passive bystander can be useful in order to understand your own desires, but then again I don't think that's an ultimate goal but it would be nice to watch and find that perfect swimming hole, and then dive in!

When extreme thoughts arrive, uninvited, as
Most thoughts do, we veto them, saying “don’t”,
For while we can never will that which does
The unconscious willing, we have some “free won’t”.

Again, I can agree with what you're saying in that decisions are simultaineous lost opportunities - what thing is done is something else that is not done.

Though again, the net result from an emotional perspective may not be zero.

Many are robots, but no one notices
Since there are so many different kinds,
Which, though making life quite interesting,
Obscures the fact that the will is unfree.

Ok, if the will is unfree, then what determines its choices?

If you place it subordinate to something else, then you have the question over what wills the will to will etc. or what creates the creative ability to create etc.

It may be that there is something that unavoidably begins with an infinite recursion, but it's better to avoid such structures when possible - likely, at most, only one such structure needs exist and the rest can inherit the recursion from it.

[SteveA]

Unfree - ** (state of mind I)
Less Unfree - * (state of mind II)

The awareness at * is of dislike for the state of mind at **.
Only once approaching * does the question arise
- the question of whether we have free will.

It'd be dumb for us to be upset by some aspect of reality over which we might never have power to control.
We're not actually discussing the switch from
Absolute Not Free Will -> Absolute Free Will
here -
- simply a relative change from

Unfree Will -> Less Unfree Will

(We aren't programmed to see it this way -
the feeling which you'll have in mind will be of the aspiration to achieve Absolute Free Will

Our Absolute Free Will though cannot be anything other than Effectively Absolute Free Will (to our mind) -
representing only Less Unfree Will (on a closer to true Absolute scale).

The question (of whether we have free will) arises because the individual is striving to attain * - and a great mechanism for ensuring motivation for arrival at * is to engender feelings of {distaste,hatred,imprisonment} for/by **.

So - exactly as @@@ writes -
- two states of mind.

State * arises after ** (with education -)
- think of it as the mind undergoing conformational change when the body of information and associative connections formed between the information
within an individual's mind
exceeds the carrying capacity of the former structure -
- drives conformational change into the novel structure.

The older structure (the animal mind, mind of infant) undergoes change into the mind (which can be recognized because it is characterized by wisdom).

(The real biochemical/psychological basis to wisdom).

The change is triggered by hormonal changes in one's mid-30's -
- between man and woman (man and wife) together (as one) -
feeding nicely into the biological imperative for pair-bonding (observed in many species
- and not just man).

(ref: ADDForums::Stabile)

- with the choice of word
pair-bonding
alongside the bonds of physics and chemistry -
being the giveaway
(the connection between reality and ToE)

-> representing similar geometric 'ideals' on differing abstraction layers.

lower -> higher (abstraction layers).
physics -> chemistry -> psychology

Each stair has a horizontal and a vertical surface -
the geometry is shared -
the sole difference being that the 3rd stair is above the second
... is above the first stair
(from the ground up) -
<- the idea of abstraction layers in evolution
(increases in complexity of an organism by order).

~*~

Summary
(in 1 line)

We can attain what we call 'free will'
- however what we call 'free will' is simply the end form perspective of a structure which began construction 30,000 years ago (at the speciation of man) -
- representing a state of mind which shifts wholly from first person (the animal mindset) into third person (the capacity for reflection)
- representing an evolution in the complexity of mind (which may occur during our lives if we understand the world around us) -
the mind
- as perfect synonym for the individual who you (when you think about yourself) is both thinking and thinking oneself to be.

Everything you know is mind -
- is the mind knowing
- the illusion that you are (foremost) a physical structure is just that -
- an illusion.

You're (foremost) a virtual structure.

The 'you' in 'you' is mind -
The 'you' when you state 'I' - refers unambiguously to your mind.

... ... ... and your mind is ** ->- a'changin' ->- *

Very nice post.

I believe that much of the confusion over the influence of conscious will arises from its generally limited effectivity in some areas - as I mentioned above, it would seem the will would be driven by emotional forces, though what desired or not doesn't appear completely beyond conscious alteration - though if there exists a dichotomy that every good experience must be attached to a bad one or that for every happy moment and unhappy one has to occur, or that gain and pain are inseparable, then something needs to be fixed! At a minimum, the relative magnitudes between these needs to be alterable. In many ways nature does a lot of nuturing in early childhood, but over time there are in some ways fewer safety nets - that's enabling because of fewer restrictions in some respects, but it's not specifically good or bad and it would appear valuable gaining a better insight, if possible, into how emotions mold ones desires and the subsequent actions taken by them and beyond that, there's a question over why emotions exist in the first place, though that appears to be a bit of a cyclic/recursive relationship in that I'd assume there's a purpose for knowing why they exist, and the question could be emotionally driven, which would be like trying to ask what's the purpose of having a purpose, so I assume some step beyond that question would be needed ... anyway, I admit having a lot of fun with these puzzles, so I can't deny being emotionally driven by these questions.

I enjoyed your description of the mind as an evolving structure with the equivalent of layers of functions with different qualities built upon the last. I have a feeling there's some truth to that, though it may not be the only possibility, nor ideal in all respects, but it would appear at least a "natural" manner of growth.