Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
Not literally. The stomach uses chemicals to digest food. The chemicals follow the laws of chemistry and physics. If you learn to understand chemistry and physics you will simultaneously learn what determinism is. How well did you do in H.S. Chemistry?
-
It was a bit of an accident that I posted on this thread the other day. My intention was to stay on one thread to minimize the disruption that my posting is followed by. I know that I do WANT not cause that commotion, and I know I take some steps to minimize it. I will try to keep my footprint minimal here in this thread. You may have noticed I did not respond to after my 2 impulsive posts. My impulses were great because of my GREAT Interest in this topic. Don't worry, though. I have no book or long essays I'm writing on it. I just have a folder on it that I have been throwing things into for almost 10 years. It started off with differing measurable surety levels in differing science fields, and it branched out to include the surety people feel in core beliefs. But I am not anti-evidence; just exploring boundaries. */*/*/*/* In answer to your question above, yes, I believe that the legal system has a fairly good handle on what constitutes evidence worthy of a case re-evaluation . I also do think the meme you posted is generally true and ought to be heeded. However, it has its limits and that is one aspect I study. What I'd like to do is sit back and read this thread as it grows for more items to throw in my "surety folder." I've jotted down a few notes already, and am happy with that. After the thread seems to run its course I may have some items to offer for extended consideration by everyone.
-
The same way the stomach uses determinism to digest food. When you look at anything in the human body with Chemistry and Microbiology, then determinism rules all the processes. */*/*/* We have freedom, but we have to work for it. Politically, freedom is expensive and it works that way in the brain also. Freedom of will is costly, and sometimes we fail to come up with the cash. Everyone knows that breaking a habit is riddled with failure. It takes extraordinary effort to break a habit, usually.
-
I see determinism as a helper or a friend in all that our brain does, including believing. We use determinism all the time in every technology. Our brain uses determinism as a tool or a resource in making decisions, and we can control this to a limited extent. The fact that we do have SOME control justifies the use of "free will" in describing our decision process.
-
The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry. Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty. In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now. Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level. I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose. I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Reality
-
No, they are not polar opposites. Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position. Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain. There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty." Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated. If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality." The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.
-
Thanks for the minTip.
-
My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO. It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion," ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing." In my mind publishing entails making it available publically. This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.
-
It's been a long, strange, trippy, derailed thread.
-
Is it against the Internet Rules for trolls to donate?
-
I could tell that most posts were not serious. A few were, like So_crates, just now. I could tell hardly any of my chapters were seriously read any more than a fast skim. But that's ok. I probably picked up on more cues that you know, but just didn't have time to deal with them, or I just felt that plodding on to the end was still worth it. I finally, after a week of hassling, got my PayPal account in order and started paying my way here better. I am sorry it slipped my mind for years. I'll start at the $50 membership level and I would like a maroon colored tote bag that comes with it.
-
BTW, I forgot to thank you for the serious Heisenberg question. I am trying to wrap things up here, and wasn't expecting that. */*/*/* Was it with you I discussed one of my next writing projects being ECNs for twi people on "old wine skins" and debt doctrines and policies? If not I want to throw those two items out there again. I am seeking threads or documents or tapes on how they went down, from the 1990s on. I know those two items (old wine skins & debt) are changed now in the new TWI, but I am seeking more detail.
-
I can find (with some work) a citation from Penrose on Schrodinger Equation being deterministic, along with orbital shapes and energy levels. That is totally nailed down CHEM 101 now. You can ask any Chemist or Physicist about this. A citation on Quantum noise being useless in brain studies would be much more difficult to find. I have only seen the notion in passing over the years, and gradually came to believe it. This part of quantum indeterminacy is the frontier of science, and not at all nailed down. HOWEVER the RANDOM nature of quantum indeterminacy has been known all along.
-
Contrary to the pop science articles that saturate the Internet, there IS determinism in Quantum Mechanics. It does get tweaked a little, but it is still there. I handle Quantum in Chapter 5 on determinism. There I explain why I abandoned Heisenberg and Godel. I also explain what kind of determinism survives Heisenberg. I can cite Penrose on this assertion of mine here: there is determinism in Quantum. He says the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. When I was in High School A.P. Chemistry we saw how the solutions to the Schrodinger DETERMINED the shape of the electron orbitals and their exact energy levels for Hydrogen. I rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static. But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed. There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.
-
I hear you and agree. Thanks for the terminology tip. I do think the idea of minFW is provable and falsifiable, but not easy at this point in Neurobiology's maturity. Change does happen for me at times. I had followed the idea that classical free will was possible, and could elude determinism via Quantum Mechanics and Godel's theorem. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose wrote two whole books on this idea and I consumed them eagerly in the 1990s. I pursued this same route from 1967 to 2013. But that idea eventually ran dry, and I changed my approach to free will about 9 years ago. It was a jittery process at first, but also exhilarating to find a new idea to pursue.
-
On the positive side, everybody's a genius about something. ...maybe not the best things...
-
According to this meme, an Eleventh Commandment of sorts, we should challenge everything we know. At first, this meme seems like something worth knowing, it obviously is a fairly good idea. Who here can hear this meme and know it? Who here can then challenge this meme? */*/*/*/* You must ALWAYS be willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs? Really? Always? No exceptions? I do see some value to this meme, but "always" is a strong word. Is there anyone here intelligent enough to challenge this meme?
-
Different point of view here; different kind of opposition. There is a sharpening effect that happens when trying to present something to a hostile audience. I am learning from it all. Not what you want me to learn, but what I want to learn about how to better present a strange new idea. It's not my fault that my presenting this thesis for review attracts all the major posters and causes them to drop everything. I am NOT trying to cause that kind of commotion. I am NOT imposing myself on this board; it's the board that rushes to me, BECAUSE I generally have serious challenges to how people are thinking here. */*/*/*/* Ok, so I presented the thesis. I'm happy to have had the chance. PLUS I am happy that non-posting readers have a chance to see it. Maybe one reader will connect with the idea sometime in the future. I don't consider this recent rejection as indicative of the future for my minFW thesis at all. It was a very small sample size that was extremely biased against me, and obviously eager to reject anything I propose. I am undaunted, and will be re-writing soon from the suggestions I got here. So I am thankful. You can be thankful that I feel finished with this idea and this thread. I tried to communicate something far off the beaten path here, and I succeeded. You folks failed to receive it, but there it sits, un-read and waiting.
-
How about a response instead of a reaction? ...and to which points do you refer? Far from reactions, I am trying to damp down reactions and bad feelings.
-
Seriously, what is a helpful contribution? Is $50 respectable? I agreed with you the other day that this forum is not free like Facebook. I had a glitch in my PayPal, but just yesterday noticed that the GSC website takes credit cards also. I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also. It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it. But that's ok, because I did get a few tips, and a few areas I will soon re-write. On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more. */*/*/* As for your constant complaint that I am taking over the website, I think that is not accurate. It is a total exaggeration. Maybe on one thread at a time, I will have the majority of the main posters VERY OCCUPIED trying to nullify everything I post. But that is far from taking over the whole website. That isn't even taking over the one thread where the action is.
-
He wouldn't do that, nor have I said that would be the case. If natural man's free will can lead him to the new birth, then it works. I started my study of natural man's mind because it is observable and with no spirit, there are less complications for the observer to keep track of. It is the more simple situation, which aids the observing scientist. Nothing wrong with the natural man or his free will here.
-
You are right. I need a time-out. :)
-
No, your deceitful reading clouded your understanding of that. I knew how to find it; I keep records of my posting. What I said was I don't remember WHAT HAPPENED on that thread, and nothing to do with location. I don't remember why I did not address the things you talked about a few times. Remnants of a Corps Nazi.
-
Couple that remark with the familiar spirits comment in your last post and I can see you still have some of that Corps Nazi mindset in operation. You need more deprogramming.
-
