Errol,
FYI, just to refresh your recollection, in your earlier Dec 19th post you wrote: "[EM]When does free will occur timewise? It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft."
So, your "timewise" inquiry, to me, is you bringing up time first.
Also, to me, it is you exposing some of the ingrained, embedded temporal assumption(s) in the dominant scientific paradigm that seem to guide or support your and others' --Is it rightly called?-- fatalistic thinking, including your rationalizations wrt to free will as a no-show. Or, perhaps how you see it, more fairly, is in your storyline you think you adequately and accurately define reality and behavior in terms of genetics and environmental experience alone, thus with with no need or room for free will. And, within that gameboard, Errol, you do do a consistent job repeating your mantra.
From my perspective, where reality is nested structured~duality (NSD), and on a more applied level: nested structural coding, I notice that even Darwin points out that environmental conditions influence genetics, that is, these various structural codings are nested and intertwined. Yet, in your model, I don't see where you acknowledge even that small the inherent nesting and thus, to me. it looks like your model is not of the reality we inhabit and thus your conclusions about the existence, or not, of free will strike me as hollow and/or motivated by other, less rational or scientific objectives.
As for your questions about influencing or changing one's genetics, current events in genetic engineering give an affirmative or developing answer. As well, people can or do influence or change their sons' and daughters' and grand-children's genetics. Legalistically, that's not changing my individual genetics... or is it?
Considering the nesting between environmental conditions and genetic changes, it does appear that we all can follow an intuition to move out of one valley or climate to others where different foods and resources exist, all of which induce other nested changes.
More comments below...
--In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
[RF]I'm not exactly following what you may be trying to say
and/or ask relating to space-time relativity and/or gravitation field
curvature. Can you clarify how you think that relates?
I was responding to your statement which seemed to say that all analysis or adjustments occur in "the present" and thus there is seemingly no "room" in the present for free will adjustments to enter in.
I was responding to your statement which seemed to say that all analysis or adjustments occur in "the present" and thus there is seemingly no "room" in the present for free will adjustments to enter in.
[EM]
I guess that I was trying to say that the only space and time that we
know, is the space and time that is our brain's interpretation of
incoming sensory signals. The nature of a physical space and time is
unknown to us, and physical space time may not even exist. All that we
can know is our brain's interpretation of the sensory signals it
receives.
[rf] Well, that stuff, plus, if we know about the existence and features of the brain, then we also have a feel for the distance from elbow to five fingertips, or the feel of drinking 3 liters of water, and countless other measures.
Plus we should have some appreciation that our different paradigmatic models are approximate and not complete -- uncertain and changing (nested structured~dualities themselves).
...- uncertainty in our interpretations - which we do have to manage in one way or other while also resonating with the other, inner and outer and reverberated vibrations.
Plus, we apparently tend to "lock in" on one set of assumptions and/or models, or description, sometimes with great tenacity, at least up to the points when paradigm transition proves more advantageous.
So, someplace in that setup and periodic transitions we do face and make some unprecedented choices which I think go under the heading of exercising free will.
But, notice, in this larger issue, let's say you are an advocate of a certain kind of ~fatalism that is founded on, say, prevailing but somewhat inaccurate scientific assumptions. You see only genetics and environmental experience and you map these in reference to assumed spatial and temporal coordinates. But you also conceptualize and firmly hold to a notion of "a idealized but unsubstantiated beginning".
Let's say, further, that this is the ONLY belief system that you have developed or can conceive of and that you receive various rewards for advocating it and/or protecting its boundaries, inaccurate though they are.
In essence, change is not possible, even to provisionally consider an alternative threatens all,of one's investments.
[rf] Well, that stuff, plus, if we know about the existence and features of the brain, then we also have a feel for the distance from elbow to five fingertips, or the feel of drinking 3 liters of water, and countless other measures.
Plus we should have some appreciation that our different paradigmatic models are approximate and not complete -- uncertain and changing (nested structured~dualities themselves).
...- uncertainty in our interpretations - which we do have to manage in one way or other while also resonating with the other, inner and outer and reverberated vibrations.
Plus, we apparently tend to "lock in" on one set of assumptions and/or models, or description, sometimes with great tenacity, at least up to the points when paradigm transition proves more advantageous.
So, someplace in that setup and periodic transitions we do face and make some unprecedented choices which I think go under the heading of exercising free will.
But, notice, in this larger issue, let's say you are an advocate of a certain kind of ~fatalism that is founded on, say, prevailing but somewhat inaccurate scientific assumptions. You see only genetics and environmental experience and you map these in reference to assumed spatial and temporal coordinates. But you also conceptualize and firmly hold to a notion of "a idealized but unsubstantiated beginning".
Let's say, further, that this is the ONLY belief system that you have developed or can conceive of and that you receive various rewards for advocating it and/or protecting its boundaries, inaccurate though they are.
In essence, change is not possible, even to provisionally consider an alternative threatens all,of one's investments.
[em..] I brought up time because you brought it up.
[rf] No, you brought up "timewise" and I brought up "experience exists; time does not" and the option for eternal existence which erases the assumed "beginning" and offloading personal responsibility to the universe's desires for a destiny. Then you brought what we what been taught about space-time relativity and I asked how you think that is relevant...
[em..] I do not use time to attempt to prove that free will does not exist. I do not have to posit the absence of a physical time, in order to believe that there is no free will.
[rf] But it appears to me me that you must and do posit a beginning and the presence or existence of time and/or your assumed completely predictable chain of events from that assumed beginning so as to describe (prove?) fatalistically, how free will does not exist.
Yet, please notice that individual humans do have anticipation and also creative or uncertain individual decision-making features and also their own energized motility moreso than the inanimate, mechanistic world. When anticipating potential outcomes of some unfolding set of events, the event has not occurred and yet the individual can choose between anticipated events to influence the outcome or the chance of a desired outcome.
[em..] I look at inputs instead. I assume that consciousness derives from activity in the brain and body. Then I look at inputs to the brain/body complex.
[rf] No, you brought up "timewise" and I brought up "experience exists; time does not" and the option for eternal existence which erases the assumed "beginning" and offloading personal responsibility to the universe's desires for a destiny. Then you brought what we what been taught about space-time relativity and I asked how you think that is relevant...
[em..] I do not use time to attempt to prove that free will does not exist. I do not have to posit the absence of a physical time, in order to believe that there is no free will.
[rf] But it appears to me me that you must and do posit a beginning and the presence or existence of time and/or your assumed completely predictable chain of events from that assumed beginning so as to describe (prove?) fatalistically, how free will does not exist.
Yet, please notice that individual humans do have anticipation and also creative or uncertain individual decision-making features and also their own energized motility moreso than the inanimate, mechanistic world. When anticipating potential outcomes of some unfolding set of events, the event has not occurred and yet the individual can choose between anticipated events to influence the outcome or the chance of a desired outcome.
[em..] I look at inputs instead. I assume that consciousness derives from activity in the brain and body. Then I look at inputs to the brain/body complex.
I assume that there are only two empirical inputs to a living being, the genetics one inherits and environmental experience.
[rf] This over-simplification and slightly flawed or inaccurate assumption is your strength and your weakness, IMO.
Also, you are leaving out or sliding over into your black box labeled 'assumed, undefined, pre-existing consciousness' your various choices of alternative reactions to given experiences.
I say it is inaccurate or flawed because, for one thing, genetics and certainly gene expression is influenced by environmental experience. So why not reduce to just the one input of environmental experience?
Also, for any specific activity in the ~now, genetics is kind of in the background having helped to provide the active ingredients, so to speak, for whatever will be the next opportunity to either be a cog in universe's predetermined chain, or the next opportunity to exercise one's free will.
You see, in hindsight, AFTER a specific incident or choice is done and then considered, ALL its precursors can and somewhat do belong to the environmental experience category, so it seems like your account is logical. Yet, during the unfolding of each event, the specifics of actors and ingredients and influences are all multiple-state derivatives or precursors and largely also influenced by mood and habitual tendency and one's choice of how and when one may act or react given certain conditions.
We
are generally always interacting and facing choosing between many good
(or bad) alternatives. If we notice an increasing string of negative
outcomes we can (freely) choose to interact in different environments.
[And yes, this can be said to be influenced by environmental experience of learning one has free will.]
[rf] This over-simplification and slightly flawed or inaccurate assumption is your strength and your weakness, IMO.
Also, you are leaving out or sliding over into your black box labeled 'assumed, undefined, pre-existing consciousness' your various choices of alternative reactions to given experiences.
I say it is inaccurate or flawed because, for one thing, genetics and certainly gene expression is influenced by environmental experience. So why not reduce to just the one input of environmental experience?
Also, for any specific activity in the ~now, genetics is kind of in the background having helped to provide the active ingredients, so to speak, for whatever will be the next opportunity to either be a cog in universe's predetermined chain, or the next opportunity to exercise one's free will.
You see, in hindsight, AFTER a specific incident or choice is done and then considered, ALL its precursors can and somewhat do belong to the environmental experience category, so it seems like your account is logical. Yet, during the unfolding of each event, the specifics of actors and ingredients and influences are all multiple-state derivatives or precursors and largely also influenced by mood and habitual tendency and one's choice of how and when one may act or react given certain conditions.
[And yes, this can be said to be influenced by environmental experience of learning one has free will.]
[em..] Then I look at free will. Do we have 'free will' to choose our genetics? No.
[rf] Well, it seems to be a developing option currently, so -- Yes. Also, considering offspring and family/cultural influences -- yes.
[em..] Do we have 'free will' to choose all of the experiences that the environment throws at us? No.
[rf] Well, it seems to be a developing option currently, so -- Yes. Also, considering offspring and family/cultural influences -- yes.
[em..] Do we have 'free will' to choose all of the experiences that the environment throws at us? No.
[rf] All? How about, let's say we can choose 5% to 35% of what the environment throws at us? Or even 1%?
[em..] So we have no 'free will' to choose what we become. So we must be a cog in the mechanism of the universe, driven by it towards the outcome that it is destined to achieve.
[rf] I encourage you to change your pronoun from 'we' to 'I', or to 'those of us who advocate this flawed and incomplete, inaccurate model'. As, I said, within your gameboard, your storyline seems very logical, or at least mesmerizing. In hindsight all past experience fits in the container of environmental experience, but that categorization does not prove people have no free will.
Your assumptions are a little bit flawed and thus your conclusions or preconceptions don't hold up.
[em..]
Again, I mentioned time, only because you did. And the only thing that
I can say about time is mental, based on sensory experience. We can't
be sure that space and time as we know them physically exist beyond the
confines of our skulls.
So, since you poo poo time, you also poo poo space, and when you poo poo space, you poo poo NSD.
[rf] Hey, you are the one grasping at straws, Errol, projecting that I am poo pooing space via your half-baked philosophical extension of space-time relativity. All I do is poo poo time, and point out that if one 'looks inside' space-time relativity and quantum mechanics, what one sees and discovers is nested structured~duality (NSD). Looking through my lense at your model )roughly, of reality is genetics and environmental experience) I poo poo your model, basically because you assume your model is complete enough yet you fail to acknowledge the inherent nesting even though Darwin illuminated that genetics is a reflection of and/or, is influenced by the environmental experience the genetics are nested within.
[em..] Unless NSD is a purely mental construct i.e. embedded analogy.
[rf] Hey, you are the one grasping at straws, Errol, projecting that I am poo pooing space via your half-baked philosophical extension of space-time relativity. All I do is poo poo time, and point out that if one 'looks inside' space-time relativity and quantum mechanics, what one sees and discovers is nested structured~duality (NSD). Looking through my lense at your model )roughly, of reality is genetics and environmental experience) I poo poo your model, basically because you assume your model is complete enough yet you fail to acknowledge the inherent nesting even though Darwin illuminated that genetics is a reflection of and/or, is influenced by the environmental experience the genetics are nested within.
[em..] Unless NSD is a purely mental construct i.e. embedded analogy.
[rf] Golly, Errol, I made up the term so obviously it is a mental construct. It is also the name of the emerging underlying general scientific principle that you and others don't yet appreciate or understand. Yet, with this 'mental construct' I can peer inside the model you are repeating and give explanations on where and how your expression is flawed. That sucks, I know, to have flaws in your model exposed, but consider freely choosing to not go with the first few responses your flailing amigdala throws up. Or, at least consider revenge as a dish best served cold.
[em..] How can something be nested if there is no physical space?
[rf] Please try to notice that you are the one claiming that if time doesn't exist space does not or cannot exist so (thus nesting is difficult thus reactively, perhaps understandably, tit for tat since I poo-pooed your model) you poo-poo NSD.
I'm not making that claim. The claim I am making is experience exists but time does not, and I make a bigger deal pointing out that reality is nested structured~duality -- nested structural coding -- nested fields within nested fields. That ~nested structural imagery or relationship is the more accurate way to look at and consider or analyze or assess all or most aspects of reality. Simplistically, I advocate shifting from the Cartesian cubic to an all-space-filling tetrahedral or nested tetrahedral-octahedral framework and orientation.
[em..] Maybe you are talking about a mental nesting, like Douglas Hofstadter talks about with his embedded analogies.
[rf] Please try to notice that you are the one claiming that if time doesn't exist space does not or cannot exist so (thus nesting is difficult thus reactively, perhaps understandably, tit for tat since I poo-pooed your model) you poo-poo NSD.
I'm not making that claim. The claim I am making is experience exists but time does not, and I make a bigger deal pointing out that reality is nested structured~duality -- nested structural coding -- nested fields within nested fields. That ~nested structural imagery or relationship is the more accurate way to look at and consider or analyze or assess all or most aspects of reality. Simplistically, I advocate shifting from the Cartesian cubic to an all-space-filling tetrahedral or nested tetrahedral-octahedral framework and orientation.
[em..] Maybe you are talking about a mental nesting, like Douglas Hofstadter talks about with his embedded analogies.
All the best,
Errol
[rf] I haven't read about embedded analogies. I understand that what I am talking about is a physical and mental nesting. That NSD is the principle supporting or the common denominator of all physical AND mental artifacts. Consider the nested standard model on the physical side and then that a thought is one structured dual which echoes and/or reflects or associates with some other dualic structure.
Plus, I have a tendency to imagine/consider everyone of my 'mental constructs' as an instance of NSD in forms of the 6^n stacks of water molecules within respiration. Empirically, these artifacts form within out respiration reaction sites.
So, I am running something quite a bit different from the standard neuron theory model, actually, within the structural-energetics which support the neuron model ...and, I guess I would have to say, which supports or accounts for Hofstadter embedded analogies instances of NSD.
And, yes, my overall storyline is a bit grandiose and, I suppose, delusional or psychotic, which by definition, any redefinition of reality, that is, an actual shift in the scientific paradigm, has to be. So be it.
Thoughts, Errol?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Changing the western scientific paradigm.
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
[rf] I haven't read about embedded analogies. I understand that what I am talking about is a physical and mental nesting. That NSD is the principle supporting or the common denominator of all physical AND mental artifacts. Consider the nested standard model on the physical side and then that a thought is one structured dual which echoes and/or reflects or associates with some other dualic structure.
Plus, I have a tendency to imagine/consider everyone of my 'mental constructs' as an instance of NSD in forms of the 6^n stacks of water molecules within respiration. Empirically, these artifacts form within out respiration reaction sites.
So, I am running something quite a bit different from the standard neuron theory model, actually, within the structural-energetics which support the neuron model ...and, I guess I would have to say, which supports or accounts for Hofstadter embedded analogies instances of NSD.
And, yes, my overall storyline is a bit grandiose and, I suppose, delusional or psychotic, which by definition, any redefinition of reality, that is, an actual shift in the scientific paradigm, has to be. So be it.
Thoughts, Errol?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Changing the western scientific paradigm.
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation
Errol,
I'm not exactly following what you may be trying to say and/or ask relating to space-time relativity and/or gravitation field curvature. Can you clarify how you think that relates?
I was responding to your statement which seemed to say that all analysis or adjustments occur in "the present" and thus there is seemingly no "room" in the present for free will adjustments to enter in.
In the storyline I am advocating: experience exists, but time does not, and also, as I outlined, we have various types of structural coding occurring within us which represent immediate, short and longer term memory. In this model, and I think with any model which has different codings for immediate, short and long term memories , "past" is distinguishable and conditioned from "immediate or current" (present) in or by the materials of construction as well as associations.
Thus, there is, and/or there is no need for the idealized "flowing field or dimension of time" of the type you and others seem to assume and upon which your argument against the possibility of free will is based.
If you are serious about dovetailing anything with NSD, if you can, please try to just focus in on structural coding in your own aerobic biology and consider or imagine creating energy conservation-related codings that persist.
Otherwise, yes we are bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux quantum gravitational field, but if you notice, our own sp^3 hybridized bonding has its own complementary multiple-state variable mass-density. As you respire your 160 kilograms of oxygen per year ~you are also generating 10^20 water molecules per second in your respiration sites. Physics says repeating vibrations in the surroundings ought to have somewhat consistent influences on how these water molecules arrange, providing us with an internal representation of our surroundings. This hydrogen bonding is closely coupled with our energy conservation and via influences on protein-folding, will all expression. You and just about anyone can get a quick feel for the multiple-state/variable mass-densityvia the analog math by constructing and feeling the n4 and s4 magnetic tetrahedra.
You should be able to do that multiple-state comparison in your head and dovetail from there.
If you have difficulty please write out what you encounter as blocks or resistances.
Best regards and Happy New Year,
Ralph Frost
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
I'm not exactly following what you may be trying to say and/or ask relating to space-time relativity and/or gravitation field curvature. Can you clarify how you think that relates?
I was responding to your statement which seemed to say that all analysis or adjustments occur in "the present" and thus there is seemingly no "room" in the present for free will adjustments to enter in.
In the storyline I am advocating: experience exists, but time does not, and also, as I outlined, we have various types of structural coding occurring within us which represent immediate, short and longer term memory. In this model, and I think with any model which has different codings for immediate, short and long term memories , "past" is distinguishable and conditioned from "immediate or current" (present) in or by the materials of construction as well as associations.
Thus, there is, and/or there is no need for the idealized "flowing field or dimension of time" of the type you and others seem to assume and upon which your argument against the possibility of free will is based.
If you are serious about dovetailing anything with NSD, if you can, please try to just focus in on structural coding in your own aerobic biology and consider or imagine creating energy conservation-related codings that persist.
Otherwise, yes we are bobbling along in the local solar fusion flux quantum gravitational field, but if you notice, our own sp^3 hybridized bonding has its own complementary multiple-state variable mass-density. As you respire your 160 kilograms of oxygen per year ~you are also generating 10^20 water molecules per second in your respiration sites. Physics says repeating vibrations in the surroundings ought to have somewhat consistent influences on how these water molecules arrange, providing us with an internal representation of our surroundings. This hydrogen bonding is closely coupled with our energy conservation and via influences on protein-folding, will all expression. You and just about anyone can get a quick feel for the multiple-state/variable mass-densityvia the analog math by constructing and feeling the n4 and s4 magnetic tetrahedra.
You should be able to do that multiple-state comparison in your head and dovetail from there.
If you have difficulty please write out what you encounter as blocks or resistances.
Best regards and Happy New Year,
Ralph Frost
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
[RF]I expect I am coming at this from my own appreciations of "experience exists; time does not", and also that reality is nested structured~duality and/or nested fields within nested fields -- and NOT from the rather flat assumption of time as some sort of flowing field or dimension.
[EM]Since space and time are intimately related, what we say
about time should also be true about space.
Since time is relative for each thing in motion (and everything is
always in motion), we might say that each thing can be said to carry around its
own time with it. If it carries around
its own time with it, it must also carry around its own space with it.
So what does it look like when everything has its own time
and space? Well, we know how
consciousness makes sense of it. We are
presented experience on the stage of time and space. If space time is relative, could it be
because each consciousness creates its own spacetime? How?
Place and time grid cells exist in the hippocampus and areasnear to it.
Could the space time of experience be created by
consciousness in an otherwise spaceless timeless block universe?
So if there is no physical time, all experience exists in a
dimensionless point, but consciousness experiences its lifeline in accordance
with its internally generated time and space.
Without
time, there can not be space, without space there can be no physical
nesting as we think of it, but meaning and experience involve deep
nesting. Meaning derives from remembered experience analogously.
Repeated similar experience become category. Categories can be
analogized to each other to derive higher level meaning. You end up
with embedded analogy, which references such a volume of embedded
experience, that consciousness can not contain it, so the meaning
appears to flow from outside of space and time, but really meaning comes
from the embedded analogies which, subconsciously, extend all the way
back to the beginning of experience.
Can that dovetail with your idea of NSD, Ralph?
Errol
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation
Errol,
Pardon me, if it's disruptive, for replying to your question to Glen.
Regarding your queries about free will "timewise", and also your assumption/statement: "I can really only interpret or experience or be conscious of the present, based on what I know from my past." , I suggest you look a little deeper into what you assume and glibbly label as "the past" and "the present", and give some scientific consideration to what artifacts you consider when assessing and signifying "what is past, and what is present".
I expect I am coming at this from my own appreciations of "experience exists; time does not", and also that reality is nested structured~duality and/or nested fields within nested fields -- and NOT from the rather flat assumption of time as some sort of flowing field or dimension.
Also, within your or the paradigm where ~time is a dimension, or however ~we assume it, I agree your statement SEEMS accurate, but when one looks deeper, our sense of "past" only relates to artifacts or instances of memory.
...In my nested structural coding imagery, perhaps you can consider that all immediate experiences are structurally coded in stacks of recently formed water molecules, whereas, short-term memory items are present in cells as bound water within newly formed protein matrices, and whereas, longer-term items are coded in more complicated organic structures and in multiple places and contexts.. (On up into our epi-genetics and genetics...)
In this imagery, "present or current, immediate experience" has a particularly, let's say, vaporous, wispy *feel* or quality to it whereas, "past experiences" *feel* a bit, let's say, firmer. And, yes, okay at this level, you may be able claim, the present is still the present and the past is certainly a bit older present than the present. So what's the point relating to free-will timewise?
I think the distinction comes when we consider the two types of past memories which can/do develop from repeats of an initial experience. These ~two structural codings may also be considered "outcomes". Let's say one or one group is characterized as, "Boy, that was a totally crappy outcome", whereas another or others, are "Hey, this turned out pretty good" -- associating with/using less energy, being more sustainable, leading to ~richer outcomes, etc.
Do you see the distinction emerging yet, Errol?
Where ~you assume standard old paradigm time-flow-temporality you ask, "When does or can free-will enter in?". And since you can't construct a decent, time-relevant answer amid your other assumptions, you conclude free will can't/doesn't exist.
Yet, you know yourself and you generally experience selecting the higher, more noble or more considerate aspects of your character and behavior. If there is no time that you can identify WHEN free will can enter, what can possibly account for the anomaly of your own experience? What is it that you do not understand about reality?
The answer is in your and our nested structural coding. It is not a matter of WHEN in time (your assumed or idealized present conscious moment) can free will assert, but WHERE and HOW and in what myriad of ways can one's nested structural coding develop and express or manifest one's free will. There are lot's of options in the nested structural coding. It's an intrinsic part of our being.
You write, "There can be no conscious decision to compare present and past, because experiencing the present, in the light of the past, is consciousness itself. It does not seem to me, to be a conscious act, when I compare present experience with the past,"
I get the impression you hold to a very thin sliver of the verbalizable awareness of the un-sub-conscious as being the true, only valid "conscious" for you. Is that a fair or at least somewhat accurate characterization?
In the model I am advocating, I consider the entire un-sub-conscious as engaged in useful or influential nested structural coding and so restricting conscious activity to a small slice of the atomic clock ticks of the present moment is not that helpful or scientifically relevant when it comes to how we do our structural-energetic and enzyme-catalyzed energy conservation. The time-wise paradigm assumption, I believe, blocks a clear and helpful understanding.
A couple of perhaps relevant examples MAY help to illustrate what I mean. (Maybe not, though.)
One comes from research on NDE accounts which claim/prove that people backfill extreme experiences which occur in low blood-flow/oxygen conditions with after-the-fact, upon recovery -- more socially acceptable accounts of their otherwise inexplicable experiences.
Others, for me are vision-related arising after vision loss at age 58 (8 years ago). One occurs when I wake up from napping hearing and looking at, or in the direction of TV. After a brief time of confusion, I recognize that my visual experience is not in proper sync with the sounds. Generally, it turns out my default start-up vision is above and to the right of the screen and the dissonance between hearing the sounds and yet NOT seeing moving images, prompts me to scan and adjust my one good eye to view the TV. My 'brain' tells me my eyes are properly aimed, whereas, they are apparently not.
A somewhat related instance is available in considering peripheral vision. With intact peripheral vision, people can easily track moving people or cars when walking in crowds or crossing streets. Most would consider that just normal present moment consciousness. Without intact peripheral vision or with just the reduced field central vision one lacks a coherent view (or only has a poorly generated sequential approximation which is related to how well/fast one can form/retrieve items to/from short-term memory) of all moving objects. Thus, it turns out that regular vision involves a rather large amount of pre-processing and substantial integration of various nested fields of vision within our overall field of vision.
Thus, just from the peripheral vision instance, I suggest there are likely gaping holes in your assertion: "There can be no conscious decision to compare present and past, because experiencing the present, in the light of the past, is consciousness itself. " If there is room to knit together your coherent visual imagery without you knowing it, there are surely more than enough opportunities to run the integrated free will modulator without you seeing that either.
Thoughts?
Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Ralph Frost
Changing the western scientific paradigm.
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
Pardon me, if it's disruptive, for replying to your question to Glen.
Regarding your queries about free will "timewise", and also your assumption/statement: "I can really only interpret or experience or be conscious of the present, based on what I know from my past." , I suggest you look a little deeper into what you assume and glibbly label as "the past" and "the present", and give some scientific consideration to what artifacts you consider when assessing and signifying "what is past, and what is present".
I expect I am coming at this from my own appreciations of "experience exists; time does not", and also that reality is nested structured~duality and/or nested fields within nested fields -- and NOT from the rather flat assumption of time as some sort of flowing field or dimension.
Also, within your or the paradigm where ~time is a dimension, or however ~we assume it, I agree your statement SEEMS accurate, but when one looks deeper, our sense of "past" only relates to artifacts or instances of memory.
...In my nested structural coding imagery, perhaps you can consider that all immediate experiences are structurally coded in stacks of recently formed water molecules, whereas, short-term memory items are present in cells as bound water within newly formed protein matrices, and whereas, longer-term items are coded in more complicated organic structures and in multiple places and contexts.. (On up into our epi-genetics and genetics...)
In this imagery, "present or current, immediate experience" has a particularly, let's say, vaporous, wispy *feel* or quality to it whereas, "past experiences" *feel* a bit, let's say, firmer. And, yes, okay at this level, you may be able claim, the present is still the present and the past is certainly a bit older present than the present. So what's the point relating to free-will timewise?
I think the distinction comes when we consider the two types of past memories which can/do develop from repeats of an initial experience. These ~two structural codings may also be considered "outcomes". Let's say one or one group is characterized as, "Boy, that was a totally crappy outcome", whereas another or others, are "Hey, this turned out pretty good" -- associating with/using less energy, being more sustainable, leading to ~richer outcomes, etc.
Do you see the distinction emerging yet, Errol?
Where ~you assume standard old paradigm time-flow-temporality you ask, "When does or can free-will enter in?". And since you can't construct a decent, time-relevant answer amid your other assumptions, you conclude free will can't/doesn't exist.
Yet, you know yourself and you generally experience selecting the higher, more noble or more considerate aspects of your character and behavior. If there is no time that you can identify WHEN free will can enter, what can possibly account for the anomaly of your own experience? What is it that you do not understand about reality?
The answer is in your and our nested structural coding. It is not a matter of WHEN in time (your assumed or idealized present conscious moment) can free will assert, but WHERE and HOW and in what myriad of ways can one's nested structural coding develop and express or manifest one's free will. There are lot's of options in the nested structural coding. It's an intrinsic part of our being.
You write, "There can be no conscious decision to compare present and past, because experiencing the present, in the light of the past, is consciousness itself. It does not seem to me, to be a conscious act, when I compare present experience with the past,"
I get the impression you hold to a very thin sliver of the verbalizable awareness of the un-sub-conscious as being the true, only valid "conscious" for you. Is that a fair or at least somewhat accurate characterization?
In the model I am advocating, I consider the entire un-sub-conscious as engaged in useful or influential nested structural coding and so restricting conscious activity to a small slice of the atomic clock ticks of the present moment is not that helpful or scientifically relevant when it comes to how we do our structural-energetic and enzyme-catalyzed energy conservation. The time-wise paradigm assumption, I believe, blocks a clear and helpful understanding.
A couple of perhaps relevant examples MAY help to illustrate what I mean. (Maybe not, though.)
One comes from research on NDE accounts which claim/prove that people backfill extreme experiences which occur in low blood-flow/oxygen conditions with after-the-fact, upon recovery -- more socially acceptable accounts of their otherwise inexplicable experiences.
Others, for me are vision-related arising after vision loss at age 58 (8 years ago). One occurs when I wake up from napping hearing and looking at, or in the direction of TV. After a brief time of confusion, I recognize that my visual experience is not in proper sync with the sounds. Generally, it turns out my default start-up vision is above and to the right of the screen and the dissonance between hearing the sounds and yet NOT seeing moving images, prompts me to scan and adjust my one good eye to view the TV. My 'brain' tells me my eyes are properly aimed, whereas, they are apparently not.
A somewhat related instance is available in considering peripheral vision. With intact peripheral vision, people can easily track moving people or cars when walking in crowds or crossing streets. Most would consider that just normal present moment consciousness. Without intact peripheral vision or with just the reduced field central vision one lacks a coherent view (or only has a poorly generated sequential approximation which is related to how well/fast one can form/retrieve items to/from short-term memory) of all moving objects. Thus, it turns out that regular vision involves a rather large amount of pre-processing and substantial integration of various nested fields of vision within our overall field of vision.
Thus, just from the peripheral vision instance, I suggest there are likely gaping holes in your assertion: "There can be no conscious decision to compare present and past, because experiencing the present, in the light of the past, is consciousness itself. " If there is room to knit together your coherent visual imagery without you knowing it, there are surely more than enough opportunities to run the integrated free will modulator without you seeing that either.
Thoughts?
Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Ralph Frost
Changing the western scientific paradigm.
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
[GS]IOW, you are saying: "There's the current environment and remembered [you mean stored and retrieved, no?] environment and I choose to compare them and then act."
That's
not how I see it, Glen. There can be no conscious decision to compare
present and past, because experiencing the present, in the light of the
past, is consciousness itself. It does not seem to me, to be a
conscious act, when I compare present experience with the past, just as
my heart doesn't beat on conscious command.
Call
it genetically inspired. I can really only interpret or experience or
be conscious of the present, based on what I know from my past. Aside
from Panpsychism, I can not comprehend how it can be otherwise. Can
you?
I think that we understand analogously. What do you think about
Douglas Hofstadter's work on analogy as a basis of consciousness?From: "Glen Sizemore radicalbehaviorist2@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation
[EM]When does free will occur timewise? It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft. Consciousness
is in a constant state of flux. Millions of neurons are all at
differing stages of processing of millions of environmental signals and
comparing them to remembered environmental signals, simultaneously. What is all of this processing doing? I would guess that it is determining what to do next by analyzing how various remembered experiences turned out. It's statistical; 'If
this worked to achieve my goal in 99% of remembered similar situations,
then this is the action I will take in this situation. That's logical, isn't it?
GS:
What you have written shows exactly why "free-will" continues to live
on. Animals (including us) do not "...compar[e environmental signals] to
remembered environmental signals." Our behavior is simply a function of
the past and current environments. To say that we "compare signals" is
to add an unexplained "action" that, therefore, could be said to be a
matter of free-will. IOW, you are saying: "There's the current
environment and remembered [you mean stored and retrieved, no?]
environment and I choose to compare them and then act."
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Errol McKenzie errolmacky@... [jcs-online] <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
[MT.] Errol if you don't recognize "voluntary behaviour" you are off in your own private universe, rather like GS' Behaviourist private world. The way the determinism debate goes is this : *everyone* serious recognizes voluntary behaviour, *everyone* serious recognizes that yes, you think you have free will when you make decisions, yes, you cannot shake that perception, and yes, everyone recognizes that there is a difference between conscious, voluntary behaviour and unconscious, automatic behaviour. What the determinists then say is; " yes but it's all an illusion.." And that's why we have the silly debate about Libet, where determinists try to show that we are deluded about what is actually automatic behaviour in the experiment, and therefore we must be deluded about conscious behaviour too. (Wh. doesn't follow at all). Determinists tend to focus on our self-deludedness. No serious determinist is producing any scientifically recognized examples of consistent voluntary behaviour Except GS of course who seems to think that his "laws" of "schedule reinforcement" or whatever are universally recognized and referenced in every school textbook. (Shhh.. don't tell him)[EM]When does free will occur timewise? It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft. Consciousness is in a constant state of flux. Millions of neurons are all at differing stages of processing of millions of environmental signals and comparing them to remembered environmental signals, simultaneously. What is all of this processing doing? I would guess that it is determining what to do next by analyzing how various remembered experiences turned out. It's statistical; 'If this worked to achieve my goal in 99% of remembered similar situations, then this is the action I will take in this situation. That's logical, isn't it?If it seems like we have free will, it might be because we can waver our decision back and forth in our minds. But thatwavering does not necessarily indicate free will. It might indicate the constant flow of information from current and past environments during the decision making process; as new information is processed the decision is affected.[MT]So if, Errol,you're not prepared to recognize voluntary behaviour in any form (and you're clearly not) then one must leave you to keep playing with yourself.[EM]Honestly, Mike. I wish that someone could convince me of the existence of free will. It is the basis of the very dignity of man. Without free will, concepts like 'merit' and 'guilt' are relegated to the dustbin. But free will would connect us with the divine and the eternal, and I would like to believe in a powerful god who cares about me. But one must have reasons to believe in something, or face the possibility of duping oneself.Do you think that an earthworm or a hydra has free will? If so, how do genes and environment interact to create that free will? If not, then why do humans, among all living creatures have 'free will'?[MT]PPS No form of creativity BTW is deterministic or predictable. Try taking any creative genre like drawing, painting, patchworks, detective stories and try explaining what the first step/part/sentence/pixel must be. You can do this for computation problems - whatis the first number in the answer to 33 x 46 ? You can't do this for creative problems - what's the opening sentence for Luke Skywalker in the next, still unwritten Star Wars movie? What must the first sentence be in a post replying to this one? There are potentially *infinite* solutions rather than the determinist's *one*. Determinism is as dumb as you can mathematically get.[EM]Predictable is not the same as deterministic. Things can be deterministic, yet not currently predictable, due to more complexity than current computers can handle. An action right now is determined byinterpreting the current environment in the light of all previous experience. So how many experiences does a 40 year old have? Some come to bear on the current situation, others not so much. But all previous experience comes to bear on reacting to 'now'. If you could build a computer, that at any instant can analyze both the current environment, while taking into consideration all previous environmental states that it has experienced; and if you could train that computer's neural net for 40 years of normal human activity, then, perhaps that computer might appear as free-willed as any 40 year old human. We really don't know how neural nets solve their problems either. It's all statistics, on what has worked before. Neural nets were designed based on biological neuron function. There are good reasons to doubt free will. Lots of people do. Why would free will decisions be made without cause, when everything else obeys cause/effect?Thanks for the criticism.Errol
From: "tintner michael tintner@... [jcs-online]" <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com>
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 8:03 AM
Subject: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computationGS (& later, Errol) , funny you should talk "gibberish". Your reply is generally that - in the sense of being couched in your & other Behaviourists' own private language wh. you *appear* to be unaware the rest of science no longer talks.If you wish to reference normal, generally recognizable human/animal behaviour (where you say there is lawful consistency) - like people deciding about purchases/ work/ sex/ academic or any other problems/decisions etc rather than "stimulus control"/"schedule reinforcement" etc behaviour, I will v. gladly & v. seriously discuss with you.Where you *have* referenced recognizable behaviour is when it comes to cars/AI, and there you clearly know little.You: " An example is "self-driving automobiles."Do you think that they can behave efficiently only in an area in which the AI has been
trained? Think again. Actually, that's good advice in general...try thinking sometimes."[Note you don't (& won't) produce an example. You go for a sleight-of-hand rhetorical question. And whether AI's "behave efficiently" is irrelevant]There are no true autonomous cars and none are planned. For that, the car would have to , like you, do something new - go "off-track" - effectively say "oh that looks an interesting area" and start exploring back streets when it has only been programmed for highways. If it could go off track once onto a new road or path, it could keep doing that in principle ad infinitum as all living creatures can and, however modestly do. And AGI/"strong AI" would have been solved.You are talking about the unsolved problem of AGI as if it were solved - just as you are similarly talking about the unsolved problem of determinism/free will as if it has been already solved. {No "autonomous car" would-be producer *wants* a true autonomous world-wandering car - they want to produce cars that are perfectly predictable in their behaviour. You, the human driver/passenger would be pissed if your "autonomous" car suddenly decided, like a human, to go off on its own rather than your travels.]If you have any real interest in this area, (about wh. BTW I know a good deal), read the father of quantum computation's article about why AGI is stuck (still valid 5 years later)It's v.worth reading. No AI/robot is capable of a single new step. - has any creativity, as Deutsch says. You will not produce one example.For a "deterministic" machine to do that, it would have to be able to predict the new, unknown - predict say what's on the first stepping stone in the street or road round the corner. That ain't possible. It's a fundamental feature of the universe. Laws only apply to old, routine behaviour in old routine environments. There are no laws that can predict new behaviour. That's why you don't see any true "autonomous mobile robots" wandering the streets. Again, try giving me a single counterexample - but in English not in Behaviour-ese.That's also why all machines only work in structured, controlled made-predictable environments (unless driven by a human).If we want true autonomous exploratory robots - wh. we do - we will have to set them free to explore, and we will have to use a developed recursive version of "nondeterministic programming" wh already exists. "Nondeterministic" is a coy term for "free". Free will already exists in machines if in primitive, embryonic form.P.S. Errol if you don't recognize "voluntary behaviour" you are off in your own private universe, rather like GS' Behaviourist private world. The way the determinism debate goes is this : *everyone* serious recognizes voluntary behaviour, *everyone* serious recognizes that yes, you think you have free will when you make decisions, yes, you cannot shake that perception, and yes, everyone recognizes that there is a difference between conscious, voluntary behaviour and unconscious, automatic behaviour. What the determinists then say is; " yes but it's all an illusion.." And that's why we have the silly debate about Libet, where determinists try to show that we are deluded about what is actually automatic behaviour in the experiment, and therefore we must be deluded about conscious behaviour too. (Wh. doesn't follow at all). Determinists tend to focus on our self-deludedness. No serious determinist is producing any scientifically recognized examples of consistent voluntary behaviour Except GS of course who seems to think that his "laws" of "schedule reinforcement" or whatever are universally recognized and referenced in every school textbook. (Shhh.. don't tell him)So if, Errol,you're not prepared to recognize voluntary behaviour in any form (and you're clearly not) then one must leave you to keep playing with yourself.PPS No form of creativity BTW is deterministic or predictable. Try taking any creative genre like drawing, painting, patchworks, detective stories and try explaining what the first step/part/sentence/pixel must be. You can do this for computation problems - whatis the first number in the answer to 33 x 46 ? You can't do this for creative problems - what's the opening sentence for Luke Skywalker in the next, still unwritten Star Wars movie? What must the first sentence be in a post replying to this one? There are potentially *infinite* solutions rather than the determinist's *one*. Determinism is as dumb as you can mathematically get.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment