Mike wanted me to start this topic so he can do what he does.
What I want is to find out is who the other six "the men of god" are. Johniam said a music coordinator told him victor was "The 7th THE Man of God." Who is this music coordinator and who are the other six "THE Men of God"?
I'm happy to discuss determinism and the illusion of free will, as long a we get to the bottom of this T7TMOG thing. This goes to the heart of cult manipulation and cult leadership and what it means to be a cult.
Just saw this thread, and haven't read beyond the first page yet but thought I'd add this to the mix now just in case it wasn't mentioned. What is determinism? Here's the definition from the net:
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
I have a hard time believing this definition but am open to hearing an argument for it. Thx.
Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology - whether it’s your ideas or the authors you refer to.
I am surprised to hear that because I've been careful to make it line up with those 3 points I mentioned earlier on free will that VPW taught. If you are aware of more items that he taught, and/or that I went against PLEASE be specific.
Meanwhile you seem to be distant from the actual ideas in my chapters.
I find it hilarious that when I note the cult-mindset we all adopted in TWI - you do that I-was-better-smarter-more spiritual than all you fools song. That’s pretty lame.
. I do not think I was better-smarter-more spiritual. The reason I point out things like me avoiding the cult mind-set is to show that it wasn't the PFAL that was poisoned (just look at me), but it was something in the Corps program that tainted things, both for some Corps people and non-Corps that were dragged in with them.
And I wouldn’t brag about your screwy reinterpretations of wierwille dogma or nonsensical “bottom up” approach since it reveals what a goofy ever-morphing ideology you have. It’s not a good look - it definitely has impacted your “sales”.
You have not paid attention to my posting well enough to remember that my Bottom-Up approach to the canon was NOT a morphed ideology, but something that I came up with (or Chris Geer did) right out of the shoot, just months after I took the class in 1972.
PLUS, you forgot that Walter liked it. With that was an unspoken assurance that VPW felt similarly.
No - I think you’re like an imposter with fake awards on the wall who shows me all his fake credentials of selling his propaganda to PhDs so I should convert to your way of thinking
You are lost in the credential jungle, and avoiding the issue of free will versus determinism.
Just show me you can handle the IDEAS in my chapters here, because I don't care about you validating me. Let's just talk about the ideas; unless you are not able to. I'd understand. Free will is the most difficult issue in science these days.
Do you care anything about free will and how it works?
You mentioned weeks ago that you were wondering about free will versus determinism.
So far I have 4 chapters up that say it is a go with determinism AND free will being true, if the definition of free will is modified down to minFW. I am almost ready to post chapter 5 which is on determinism, which is about the strongest thing in all of science and needs no modification.
Just saw this thread, and haven't read beyond the first page yet but thought I'd add this to the mix now just in case it wasn't mentioned. What is determinism? Here's the definition from the net:
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
I have a hard time believing this definition but am open to hearing an argument for it. Thx.
That is not really a definition of determinism, but more an extreme application of it, and a questionable one at best. Not all scientists think of determinism in that way at all.
I have been posting entire chapters here from my book on free will versus determinism. The next chapter is totally on determinism. It is the strongest part of all science.
If you have ever wondered about free will, try reading some of my chapters here. You might like it. I will give you a much better definition of determinism in my next chapter, soon to be posted.
approach to the canon was NOT a morphed ideology, but something that I came up with (or Chris Geer did) right out of the shoot, just months after I took the class in 1972.
It’s still not a valid approach- doesn’t matter who came up with it
You are lost in the credential jungle, and avoiding the issue of free will versus determinism.
Just show me you can handle the IDEAS in my chapters here, because I don't care about you validating me. Let's just talk about the ideas; unless you are not able to. I'd understand. Free will is the most difficult issue in science these days.
Do you care anything about free will and how it works?
I know enough to be certain you don’t know what you’re talking about
do not think I was better-smarter-more spiritual. The reason I point out things like me avoiding the cult mind-set is to show that it wasn't the PFAL that was poisoned (just look at me), but it was something in the Corps program that tainted things, both for some Corps people and non-Corps that were dragged in with them
Something in the corps program?!?!?!
hmmmmm you mean the corps program that was wierwille’s baby? That he ran with an iron fist? You mean The way corps program that YOU were never in and know zilch about but have to project your denial onto so you feel superior? Okay - maybe there’s something in all that
Edited by T-Bone maybe...maybe not...maybe...maybe so
One big reason that there is a such a debate and paradox involving free will and determinism is because determinism is SO ominously powerful in science.
Determinism has nearly all the success of science backing it up. Assuming that determinism is true is a VERY safe assumption.
Classical free will (LibFW) is defined in such complete opposition to determinism, that this form of free will is pretty much ruled out in science circles, these days.
It is safe to say that a huge majority of all working scientists believe in determinism. Whenever you nonchalantly zoom through a green traffic light you, too, are betting your life on the determinism that rules in its electronics. ALL of the surety we enjoy in science is due to determinism. It is THE cornerstone of Modern Science.
Determinism is not really a theory. It’s more of a BENEFIT that often emerges from scientific analysis. Debating against determinism is like tilting at windmills. No one wants to bother, because determinism is SO SOLID. It’s a little different in the small world of Quantum, but not that much.
*/*/*
Here is an example of determinism in all its glory and simplicity:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC two hours later? Answer: 120 miles. The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
It’s really that simple.
It gets more interesting with complications, like if the velocity changes with time, as with a falling object. A baseball outfielder estimates from the ball’s speed leaving the bat and its direction, where to run to and how fast. The outfielder’s internal Physics Simulator (the brain) estimates the determinism that operates on the ball from seeing it many, many times before.
That’s all determinism is.
Some kind of rule plus the initial conditions, together DETERMINE what happens in the near future.
*/*/*
Exactly HOW this rule rules, and how determinism determines, no one knows.
In medieval times some thought that many microscopic angels pushed things around, all according to God’s will, and that was how determinism ruled. A little later, Newton tried to get his corpuscle theory of light do the dance of constructive and destructive interference bands. I hear that what he came up with resembles micro-angels dancing in tiny places.
Then, a few more centuries later, modern Quantum Mechanics uses a soup of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence to help prop everything else up. Is it just a coincidence that “virtual particles” sound a lot like “virtuous particles” ...and we’re almost back to micro-angels again?
Not really. Not only would there need to be a HUGE number of micro-angels pushing everything around, but each one would have to have instant access to an on-board supercomputer to calculate precisely how strong their next push should be, and in which exact direction.
Modern sophisticated Physics simply gives up on all this background process, and admits that it has nothing to say about the “how” involved in determinism and the Laws of Physics. The only thing Physics now addresses is “how much” or “where in space” or “when in time.” Only things that are measurable are in the Physics focus now.
WHATEVER makes each particle do what it does is determinism.
*/*/*
For such a fundamental thing like determinism, think of it as the consensus as what all the undergraduate Physics textbooks say about it. What DO they say about it?Not much; they just use it. Determinism is such a basic concept, that this is where to find it first.
*/*/*
Quantum re-arranged determinism a little, but it’s still there. Ever since Quantum Mechanics was discovered, there’s less consensus on determinism in the frontiers or fringes of a field, because indeterminacy seems to hold promise of helping out in times of explanatory need. After that frontier field is settled and once some things are nailed down, determinism will return to its throne in that field.
But Neuroscience is not settled, so there is a lot of noise in this frontier field about determinism. It’s one of the things people turn to when things get very confusing.
In the bulk of normal science, and neuroscience, it’s mostly Newtonian in flavor. Classical Newtonian Physics works VERY well all the way down to the level of brain cells and further.In the science frontiers, like the mind, they are often pulling out their hair for new ideas, and quantum determinism is popularly regarded as one of the “usual suspects” when all goes wrong.
This theory on minFW, being FULLY deterministic, should bring satisfaction to this vast bulk of scientists, working on far more tame issues. To them, determinism is what makes everything work well. They are tired of hearing from the frontier how determinism flexes this way or that. They are comfortable with garden variety Newtonian determinism.
*/*/*
The verb “to determine” is somewhat synonymous with the verb “to force.”
A theory is a detailed way of predicting the future of a system. Then, to test the theory, we do an experiment by physically building such a system with said initial conditions, and observing how it behaves as it reaches a later time.
It is very dramatic to see the theory and the experiment line up and agree with each other, and is cause for great celebration in science. THIS is where determinism comes in. Scientists form a strong impression from these celebrations that Nature somehow actually FORCES the system to behave in the same way the theory describes. If this kind of celebration does not occur, then that signals the possible need for a new theory.
*/*/*
To me the only determinism that really matters is the kind seen in simple Physics 101. I would say that most scientists never speak nor read the word “determinism” in their work. They all simply assume the background of causality and determinism, and then crank away with their work, never even thinking of that assumption.
*/*/*
Another simple example of determinism in action is dropping a ball from a short height.You set the clock to zero when the ball is dropped, and the time the ball hits the floor is what we are interested in.
We apply the theory of gravity to get a prediction of that time. We do this experiment ten times and see that our prediction is very accurate, and our strong impression grows that gravity is FORCING the ball to drop exactly the same way the theory predicts. How gravity does this is a complete mystery, until you go to General Relativity. But even then, you see mass mysteriously “forcing” space-time to curve.
As we make numerical predictions with gravity theory and see them to be accurate in laboratory measurements, we forget about the background mystery of HOW gravity does this.It just DOES it! Plus, THIS is numerically how strongly it does it, and THIS how quickly in time it gets the job done.
The strong impression grows that SOMEHOW Nature forces (or determines) the future behavior of falling balls with natural forces, as well as ALL particles of matter, some involving systems much more complicated that a dropped ball. In the history of science this kind of growth went on-and-on for centuries.
Finally, we look at the most complicated of all systems, the human brain with the course of thoughts, and the subjective feel of free will. Suddenly, our confidence in determinism forcing the behavior of all matter gets a surprising set of new challenges.
This is when the trouble starts.
Up until this point determinism and its “forcing” has been a VERY useful, powerful, and beautiful friend.But suddenly we see the possibility that this wonderful determinism is ALSO forcing every thought we think!
So, determinism is a friend, until it is applied to us and seems to threaten our very existence. If we are forced to do everything we do, what is left to be US? Nothing! It’s the ultimate existential quandary, if our personal identities are based on us having a great treasure of originality and uninfluenced behavior.
*/*/*
But I think that war is over, and determinism won.
Actually, I’m very deliberately trying to beat a new drum for determinism.I think it’s gotten a bad rap, and at one time I was doing some of that bad rapping. So, I made a peace treaty with determinism.
I let it rule; it lets me think I’m ruling.
I’m only half joking here. For many decades I held determinism in relative schizophrenic contempt. I loved it for all things except mental.It was a very rocky relationship.
So, to my audience I want to say: “Determinism is NOT GUILTY, after all!”
We can have free will (a little of it) AND we can keep our Precious & Proven Determinism, and give it a capital “D” as an appropriate apology for all the decades of trying to make it fall apart.
*/*/*
One reason determinism is so durable is because it is so VERY simple. It’s what makes science useful, and sometimes able to predict the future. It’s literally what makes the Sun come up tomorrow.
*/*/*
In the years 2005-2015 (just prior to my finding minFW) I went on a desperate war with determinism. All my attempts for decades to find determinism relief in Quantum and other means had failed. I tried every possible way to KILL determinism! It got funny, like a parody. I was tilting at THE windmill of science and I knew it. I was desperate.
I spend many years trying to get determinism relief to no avail. Now, in this new theory, I am actually USING determinism to achieve partial freedom. Determinism is VERY useful. It’s the very reason science is useful
I have learned that determinism is a friend to us when we want to get things done. I now believe that simple biology can use determinism for producing a liver, a heart, and a brain with consciousness and free will.
*/*/*
Being in control of your actions implies determinism. It is via determinism that the control happens.
Once we get it right, a habit is very useful. Determinism maintains good habits as well as bad. This is why at least some level of determinism is needed in order to MAINTAIN the “will” part of a “free will worth wanting.”
*/*/*
The reason most working scientists don’t believe in traditional FW is because they love determinism, and use it all the time in their work. Determinism has been a great friend everywhere in science and technology.Free will has been very poorly handled in recent centuries, with most time wasted on Libertarian ideas that try to evade Physics.
I don’t think that deterministic robotic behavior is all that bad, as long as it’s good sophisticated robotic behavior, i.e., principled and flexible, and an appropriately large repertoire of responses.
That’s pretty much all we really want in humans!
We want our friends and family to be principled and flexible. Principled means guided by, and even limited to some noble end. It is a CONSTRAINT on freedom to be principled. Too much freedom in the behavior of others usually makes me want to leave the room. I want my actions somewhat guided and constrained, and I want the same in my companions.
The freedom minFW offers is not sky high and way out there (like LibFW), but instead is highly constrained. Looking at minFW closely you’ll see that the freedom is limited to that internal set of standard(s) or expectation(s) or creed(s) that I mention is installed by teaching at a young age, usually by family and then friends and teachers.
*/*/*
So, the minimal freedom I think we have for behavior, decisions, and performances is that we are (partially) free to change courses from the one we are on now, to a course that better aligns with our installed internal expectations.
*/*/*
A great deal of respect should be restored to determinism. I see clear notions of determinism as having started back in Newton’s time and it developed and strength in the early 1800’s to become a real dominant and respected feature in science. Later in the 1800s confidence in this kind of determinism grew and then electricity and magnetism seemed to act the same way. So, Determinism grew to be King around the mid to late 1800s.
Something in nature makes things happen, determines the courses of atoms, is the big determining Factor. Whatever you want to call it.
It has nothing to do with predictability. It’s a Wonderful luxury when we are able to predict with the math, and an even greater luxury when the math agrees with the laboratory measurements. But all that is an add-on luxury to determinism. If we humans are unable to work out the math, we need not worry because Nature has it all worked out already.
The bottom line is that something in nature makes it all happen, and it always makes it happen right. That’s where the ideas of laws came in for Newton.
*/*/*
Here are some of these SAME thoughts in a different format.
So, what the heck is determinism? Determinism determines what happens. Atoms are blind and mindless. There are no free will decisions made at the low level of atoms, according to the best of science. And this is a very good thing. From this blind obedience of atoms we get a stable and predictable world. Without determinism bossing atoms around, tables would not be solid and water would not be splashy. Without determinism your phone would not work. Nothing at all would work right. Without determinism operating at the lower levels, Annie couldn’t guarantee that the Sun would come out tomorrow. So, we all should love determinism, those of us who like to eat every day. And scientists love it even more. It makes their work possible….. At the lower levels, down in the biology level, and chemistry level, and atomic level, determinism is a very useful thing. Determinism is a name for the ability of science to sometimes predict what is going to happen. Because of determinism both nature and science are never whimsical, and always consistent. Determinism looks real good in the lower levels but up here at the top level, it seems to be a problem. The same way it can push atoms around it seems that it can push US around also! And who wants to get pushed around? So, determinism is a friend when it’s confined to the lower levels of mindless atoms and cells, but up here at our level it’s an enemy that not only threatens to bend our wills and desires, it even presents an existential threat to us. If determinism threatens the reality of our will down to the details of what we WILL TO THINK NEXT, then what’s left to be us? Are we just wet robots? Who’s driving the bus? You or your atoms? At every level below our top level of free will our microscopic parts (all of them, all the time) blindly and accurately follow laws of Biology, laws of Chemistry, laws of Physics. Atoms determine molecular behavior, molecules determine nerve cell behavior, nerve cells determine the muscle cell behavior.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Quantum Considerations
How it happened, that Quantum Mechanics was completely dismissed from my considerations is a very long story. I’ll try several levels of abbreviation.
I originally wanted this exotic and difficult topic to help me find a way around determinism. Nearly all my adult life I had searched hard to find this, but I failed. Everyone else, that I looked up to in this, failed also. That’s the super-short story.
*/*/*
Now for detail, if anyone wants to know.
When I first heard of the battle between determinism and free will it was around my Senior year of High School, as I studied Elementary Physics. It was a big shock and I thought about it deeply.
I remember it well, first encountered this epic struggle. It involved simple determinism, not much more complicated than the NYC train example at the beginning of this chapter.
When I saw what it meant for the human brain and mind I literally trembled, the youthful lad that I was. It strongly motivated me to find anything to assist me in fighting this Fierce Foe of Determinism! I looked for tools and science writers to assist me in finding determinism relief, and it took me down many a dead end in the process. FASCINATING dead ends they all were! But they
NEVER got me satisfaction on free will.
*/*/*
Erwin Schrodinger wrote a tiny booklet in 1944 titled “What Is Life?” and made expert speculations as to where quantum could help in the areas of life, consciousness, and freewill. My High School Chemistry teacher turned me onto this around 1967, as a way free will can happen in the face of microscopic determinism. From that time on until 2015, I tried to work this quantum randomness angle, and I always looked for current experts who might be taking up this ball and running with it. I’ve also devoured many pop level science writings on it. In 1967 and for the next three decades there seemed to be a lot of promise in quantum that could save free will from determinism.
But as those decades progressed, NONE of those writings ever got any farther than Schrodinger’s 1944 level of speculations and the promise.
*/*/*
My relatively recent conclusions are that quantum is overkill for describing the human brain. I now am aware of some much simpler mechanisms that can help explain the mysterious stuff in the brain, and there is far less need to look to quantum for help.
But as far as our human machinery goes, I think humans have over-glamorized the human thought processes for centuries. They have, from mere introspection, assumed that magical powers are involved in the human brain.Embedding this idea in our culture for many centuries, the search for these mythical elements hidden in consciousness has led many researchers far astray from the biological reality. I know I did this 50 years ago. It took me decades to slowly see this, and do something about it.
*/*/*
The story gets a little richer, though.
Also, while in High School, my Calculus teacher told me about Gödel’s Theorem as possibly being a mathematics analog of quantum’s uncertainty principle. He cautioned me that it was VERY complicated, but that it may offer ways to explain consciousness and free will.He said that Gödel’s Theorem held a lot of promise. The year, again, was 1967.
*/*/*
Fifty years is a lot of time for a story to progress, but it did. It was an exciting adventure searching here and there, pondering it all, and seeking people with whom I could discuss these things. I was an amateur, just reading what I could digest, and keeping my finger on the pulse of the field the best I could. Some years I’d even break out the old calculus texts to help me delve deeper into the math of quantum.
There were a number of popular writers in the 70s and 80s that brought up the idea (and the promise) of quantum (and/or Gödel) relief from determinism, but no full-fledged Physicists would spend much time with it. I was on the lookout for them, though.
Then, finally in 1989, Roger Penrose, one of the world’s most distinguished Physicists took up this Quest into consciousness. Being world renown as a top Mathematician as well, Penrose ALSO took on the other “determinism relief” hope I had hoped for: Gödel’s Theorem.I waited over 20 years for this, and ate up all he offered for the next several years.
*/*/*
Penrose pumped out two giant books into the 1990s on all this. Both of these books are wonderful. He is a great and authoritative teacher of both quantum and Gödel. It was a vast learning experience for me in quantum math and Gödel math. BUT they went nowhere new on consciousness and free will, and were all speculation and promise for new breakthroughs in the future.
I was elated when Penrose started doing this. The entire title of the first book is: “The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics” (1989).It was the authoritative pronouncement FROM THE TOP: that there was a lot of promise and hope in quantum and Gödel for determinism relief.It was a high point of my life to see this point made in public by one of the world’s leading scientists.
A few year later his next book was on much the same topic… and much the same promise and hope: “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness” (1994).
Both books are perfect opportunities to learn lots of math and lots of physics, but for the consciousness part they just run around in circles and say “Maybe next time we'll figure the rest of it all out.”When it was all said and done, all he was able to do with consciousness is point to the future with promise… just like my HS teachers two decades prior.
So, Penrose failed, and that was 25 years ago.
At that time, he was about the most qualified human to work the consciousness applications for both of these fields, quantum and Gödel. Yet, he really didn't have anything new to say on the subject as far as advancing what I had already found out. He just constructed a beautiful frame around it, and then beefed it up with neon colored paint.
There I was in the mid-1990s, only very slowly noticing that Penrose was failing me, because he was so entertaining in the process. By the end of the decade, though, this was coming more and more to my awareness. I also was noticing a lot of intellectual opposition from neuroscience, insisting that Penrose had stepped outside his specialty field, and was not making any sense.
This had a gradual effect on me. The next 10 years were relatively fruitless on this front. I was very discouraged, but still learning and poking around for any light. My enthusiasm for quantum relief from determinism was pretty much dead. Similarly, the hopes I had in Gödel’s Theorem were fading fast as I got more technical understanding of what it was all about. All these topics were very beautiful in themselves, but useless for explaining free will and the mind.
So, about 5 years ago I gave up on finding any help from quantum and Gödel for Free Will.
It was about then that some other areas of research brought me to consider the new paths that eventually led to minFW. Determinism manipulations, like what
sailboats do, brought up whole new ways of thinking. I gradually started seeing that some small but useful, new kinds of freedoms can be “extracted” out of the deterministic world, and soon it was a whole new world for me to explore.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified.
Just a quick overview of what Quantum does: Mostly, it describes, predicts, and explains how atoms work and stick together. That’s the super short story.
*/*/*
The longer story gets very involved; this world of sticky atoms. It involves how each element is stable, and for how long. Another thing quantum works well with are details like how strongly certain atoms stick together, and at what angles.
When atoms are heated up they glow, each element glows with its own signature set of colors. This in itself is a marvel that quantum works well with.
Another marvel of quantum is when light shines on atoms, each element responds differently, again according to its own element’s color-signature.
Quantum math, where it is workable so far, can explain portions of these details, and when it does, it’s the most numerically accurate and precise thing any science has accomplished so far, by far. Quantum accuracy is astoundingly high. But, actually solving the math is a huge barrier, because it is so complicated.
Here’s another amazing thing about Quantum. Though it is difficult to solve the equations, when people do succeed in solving them, the numerical predictions they have made have NEVER been found to be wrong in a laboratory. Not yet, anyways. Where Quantum is successful, it is VERY successful!
After that it describes why certain atomic nuclei are stable and why, and stuff about other things nuclear, and far, far removed from everyday life.
It’s mostly only the sticky atoms and glowing atoms that we run into in living everyday life.
All of these quantum things take place in a world very tiny and very far removed from the world of single neuron. The world of a single neuron is very tiny and very far removed from the large world of a brain that houses any kind, type, brand, model, or theory of free wills and not-so-free wills.
*/*/*
Determinism gets a makeover in quantum for some things, some of the time.
For instance, in the Hydrogen atom, the exact position of the electron is not nailed down (or determined) in Quantum like it is in Newtonian Mechanics (and that train headed out of NYC). Instead of the electrons having an exact position, an electron “cloud” is imagined. It describes the LIKELINESS of an electron being at such and such a position in the Hydrogen atom.
But no one in real life ever needs to know about exact electron positions. It’s how atoms stick together that that affects us through Chemistry. Quantum helps Chemists in their manipulations of atoms by telling them about the energy levels of the electron clouds, and their shapes.
The shapes of these electron clouds are DETERMINED by the Schrödinger Equation. The shapes of some of these electron clouds or shells are quite exotic.
Each shell has its own energy level, and the electrons are thought of as “smeared” around the whole shell, with indeterminate location. But the energy level of each shell is completely DETERMINED by the Schrödinger Equation.
There is plenty of determinism in Quantum; modified for some parameters. It seems that ALL of the quantum indeterminacy gets smoothed or filtered out once larger items, like molecules and cells, are considered.
Quantum helps explain chemistry and chemical reactions. Free will is up on a level much higher than atoms. It takes many atoms to make a brain cell, and many brain cells to get something organized enough to house a “will.”
*/*/*
Most of the quirks of quantum determinism filter out SO WELL in the macro world that a potential Nobel Prize always is looming for the first laboratory Physicist who can show any kind of MACRO manifestation of quantum weirdness.Most of that weirdness is filtered out by the noise in the world, and what we deal with most of the time is very noisy and very Newtonian.
*/*/*
Quantum can explain all kinds of complicated atomic situations.It could be involved in lots of the brain's chemical interactions, but where I wanted to find some quantum action was up a few levels higher in the free will vs. determinism paradox.
Many others, besides me, have worked on this including some very famous Physicists.We all had great hopes many years ago that quantum would help here also. It didn't. It was all promise and no delivery. What Quantum delivers to free will, at most, is noise. It’s just mere static that has no intelligence behind it.
*/*/*
Quantum helping to explain micro brain chemistry reactions is totally expectable. Quantum explaining macro free will, so far, has been all promise, no delivery. I gave up on it when I saw other, more simple and classical ways to have some freedom.
Now I look at quantum and Gödel as overkill, and not needed if there is a simple set of classical forces that can explain our freedom to navigate.
Both the brain and sailboats use pretty exotic Classical Physics. To me they both are very mysterious and counter-intuitive, but neither NEEDS to drag in Quantum Mechanics. It's exotic Newtonian determinism that gives mind and sailing their freedoms.
It's either ALL bulls*it or you're stealing bandwidth to self-publish.
We discussed this a little.
I made a note to beef up my pay-pal so's I can donate.
*/*/*/*/*
These chapters of mine are not at all ready to publish.
This is not a self-publishing.
It is submitted for review.
I was hoping (and still am) for some discussion of the ideas.
I have been discussing almost all of the material in these chapters in pieces for about 5 years in Free Will discussion forums. So I am accustomed to discussing these ideas against all the characters on the Internet.
I say against, because each idea gets opposed. I also expect fierce opposition here, but I want opposition to the ideas, not opposition to me or my background, both technical and spiritual.
It's the ideas that need discussing.
*/*/*/*/*
I totally agree with you, Rocky, this should be in the Open Forum because Free Will interests just about everybody.
It wasn't my decision to put it here in About the Way.
*/*/*/*/*/*
I only have one small fraction of a chapter left.
It is a General Theory of deterministic freedoms.
The sailboat comes up again a little, so please wake up T-Bone.
Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology - whether it’s your ideas or the authors you refer to.
You may be mistaken here.
Remember, for this whole theory I am ONLY talking about natural man's free will, man with no spirit.
VPW didn't spend a lot of time talking about the natural man's mind, other than what it is NOT good at: knowing God. VPW spent more time talking about the mind of a Christian with spirit.
But VPW did make it a point to say that natural man had free will.
My narrative on the natural man mind and it's free will does not contain the slightest hint of that mind ever getting spirit or born again. I am not writing a book that leads to that. I have different aims, so I am writing about an area that SOUNDS antithetical to PFAL, because PFAL does not want to focus on that natural man mind as much as I do.
Maybe that is why it sounds so strange to you.
It's definitely NOT for the average grad's consumption for spiritual growth and enlightenment. It is to move laboratory scientists to look for mechanisms like the ones I am predicting.
Eventually, I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists. Meanwhile, the rule of thumb I get from all this for free will is don't give up, keep trying, and keep trying different methods.
Remember, for this whole theory I am ONLY talking about natural man's free will, man with no spirit.
VPW didn't spend a lot of time talking about the natural man's mind, other than what it is NOT good at: knowing God. VPW spent more time talking about the mind of a Christian with spirit.
But VPW did make it a point to say that natural man had free will.
My narrative on the natural man mind and it's free will does not contain the slightest hint of that mind ever getting spirit or born again. I am not writing a book that leads to that. I have different aims, so I am writing about an area that SOUNDS antithetical to PFAL, because PFAL does not want to focus on that natural man mind as much as I do.
You’re not making any sense!
Are you stoned or tripping right now as you write this stuff?
Heard of people going off the deep end…I think you sailed off the edge
I am asking what you mean by your statement:
"Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology"
And I offered a possible reason why you said that.
My narrative on the natural man mind and it's free will does not contain the slightest hint of that mind ever getting spirit or born again. I am not writing a book that leads to that. I have different aims, so I am writing about an area that SOUNDS antithetical to PFAL, because PFAL does not want to focus on that natural man mind as much as I do.
Maybe that is why it sounds so strange to you.
It's definitely NOT for the average grad's consumption for spiritual growth and enlightenment. It is to move laboratory scientists to look for mechanisms like the ones I am predicting.
Eventually, I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists. Meanwhile, the rule of thumb I get from all this for free will is don't give up, keep trying, and keep trying different methods.
This stuff definitely sounds strange to me…maybe cuz it IS strange…or it could be I’m not smoking what you’re smoking…uhm…what are you smoking?
oh that reminds me...we used to play this tune in one of the bands I was in...have another hit
" I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists."
I am asking what you mean by your statement:
"Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology"
And I offered a possible reason why you said that.
No big mystery?
Why? Are you still asleep?
My statement interprets itself
I see no reason why I should /should not/ should / should not accept a possible reason that you think
No big mystery why asleep...didn't you figure out the mystery why I am sleep-posting...or are you dreaming of reading this post before I had a chance to decide if a free will is something an attorney would never draw up...at least not on Etch A Sketch
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
I'm always wondering.
Such inelegant composition, but Hey! I didn't write the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Just saw this thread, and haven't read beyond the first page yet but thought I'd add this to the mix now just in case it wasn't mentioned. What is determinism? Here's the definition from the net:
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
I have a hard time believing this definition but am open to hearing an argument for it. Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am surprised to hear that because I've been careful to make it line up with those 3 points I mentioned earlier on free will that VPW taught. If you are aware of more items that he taught, and/or that I went against PLEASE be specific.
Meanwhile you seem to be distant from the actual ideas in my chapters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I probably should be even further back and properly dressed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are lost in the credential jungle, and avoiding the issue of free will versus determinism.
Just show me you can handle the IDEAS in my chapters here, because I don't care about you validating me. Let's just talk about the ideas; unless you are not able to. I'd understand. Free will is the most difficult issue in science these days.
Do you care anything about free will and how it works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You mentioned weeks ago that you were wondering about free will versus determinism.
So far I have 4 chapters up that say it is a go with determinism AND free will being true, if the definition of free will is modified down to minFW. I am almost ready to post chapter 5 which is on determinism, which is about the strongest thing in all of science and needs no modification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is not really a definition of determinism, but more an extreme application of it, and a questionable one at best. Not all scientists think of determinism in that way at all.
I have been posting entire chapters here from my book on free will versus determinism. The next chapter is totally on determinism. It is the strongest part of all science.
If you have ever wondered about free will, try reading some of my chapters here. You might like it. I will give you a much better definition of determinism in my next chapter, soon to be posted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It’s still not a valid approach- doesn’t matter who came up with it
Edited by T-Bonetypo-licious
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I know enough to be certain you don’t know what you’re talking about
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Something in the corps program?!?!?!
hmmmmm you mean the corps program that was wierwille’s baby? That he ran with an iron fist? You mean The way corps program that YOU were never in and know zilch about but have to project your denial onto so you feel superior? Okay - maybe there’s something in all that
Edited by T-Bonemaybe...maybe not...maybe...maybe so
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Minimalistic Free Will
Chapter 5 - DETERMINISM
##########################
Determinism is what makes “what happens” happen.
One big reason that there is a such a debate and paradox involving free will and determinism is because determinism is SO ominously powerful in science.
Determinism has nearly all the success of science backing it up. Assuming that determinism is true is a VERY safe assumption.
Classical free will (LibFW) is defined in such complete opposition to determinism, that this form of free will is pretty much ruled out in science circles, these days.
It is safe to say that a huge majority of all working scientists believe in determinism. Whenever you nonchalantly zoom through a green traffic light you, too, are betting your life on the determinism that rules in its electronics. ALL of the surety we enjoy in science is due to determinism. It is THE cornerstone of Modern Science.
Determinism is not really a theory. It’s more of a BENEFIT that often emerges from scientific analysis. Debating against determinism is like tilting at windmills. No one wants to bother, because determinism is SO SOLID. It’s a little different in the small world of Quantum, but not that much.
*/*/*
Here is an example of determinism in all its glory and simplicity:
A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC two hours later? Answer: 120 miles. The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time.
It’s really that simple.
It gets more interesting with complications, like if the velocity changes with time, as with a falling object. A baseball outfielder estimates from the ball’s speed leaving the bat and its direction, where to run to and how fast. The outfielder’s internal Physics Simulator (the brain) estimates the determinism that operates on the ball from seeing it many, many times before.
That’s all determinism is.
Some kind of rule plus the initial conditions, together DETERMINE what happens in the near future.
*/*/*
Exactly HOW this rule rules, and how determinism determines, no one knows.
In medieval times some thought that many microscopic angels pushed things around, all according to God’s will, and that was how determinism ruled. A little later, Newton tried to get his corpuscle theory of light do the dance of constructive and destructive interference bands. I hear that what he came up with resembles micro-angels dancing in tiny places.
Then, a few more centuries later, modern Quantum Mechanics uses a soup of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence to help prop everything else up. Is it just a coincidence that “virtual particles” sound a lot like “virtuous particles” ...and we’re almost back to micro-angels again?
Not really. Not only would there need to be a HUGE number of micro-angels pushing everything around, but each one would have to have instant access to an on-board supercomputer to calculate precisely how strong their next push should be, and in which exact direction.
Modern sophisticated Physics simply gives up on all this background process, and admits that it has nothing to say about the “how” involved in determinism and the Laws of Physics. The only thing Physics now addresses is “how much” or “where in space” or “when in time.” Only things that are measurable are in the Physics focus now.
WHATEVER makes each particle do what it does is determinism.
*/*/*
For such a fundamental thing like determinism, think of it as the consensus as what all the undergraduate Physics textbooks say about it. What DO they say about it? Not much; they just use it. Determinism is such a basic concept, that this is where to find it first.
*/*/*
Quantum re-arranged determinism a little, but it’s still there. Ever since Quantum Mechanics was discovered, there’s less consensus on determinism in the frontiers or fringes of a field, because indeterminacy seems to hold promise of helping out in times of explanatory need. After that frontier field is settled and once some things are nailed down, determinism will return to its throne in that field.
But Neuroscience is not settled, so there is a lot of noise in this frontier field about determinism. It’s one of the things people turn to when things get very confusing.
In the bulk of normal science, and neuroscience, it’s mostly Newtonian in flavor. Classical Newtonian Physics works VERY well all the way down to the level of brain cells and further. In the science frontiers, like the mind, they are often pulling out their hair for new ideas, and quantum determinism is popularly regarded as one of the “usual suspects” when all goes wrong.
This theory on minFW, being FULLY deterministic, should bring satisfaction to this vast bulk of scientists, working on far more tame issues. To them, determinism is what makes everything work well. They are tired of hearing from the frontier how determinism flexes this way or that. They are comfortable with garden variety Newtonian determinism.
*/*/*
The verb “to determine” is somewhat synonymous with the verb “to force.”
A theory is a detailed way of predicting the future of a system. Then, to test the theory, we do an experiment by physically building such a system with said initial conditions, and observing how it behaves as it reaches a later time.
It is very dramatic to see the theory and the experiment line up and agree with each other, and is cause for great celebration in science. THIS is where determinism comes in. Scientists form a strong impression from these celebrations that Nature somehow actually FORCES the system to behave in the same way the theory describes. If this kind of celebration does not occur, then that signals the possible need for a new theory.
*/*/*
To me the only determinism that really matters is the kind seen in simple Physics 101. I would say that most scientists never speak nor read the word “determinism” in their work. They all simply assume the background of causality and determinism, and then crank away with their work, never even thinking of that assumption.
*/*/*
Another simple example of determinism in action is dropping a ball from a short height. You set the clock to zero when the ball is dropped, and the time the ball hits the floor is what we are interested in.
We apply the theory of gravity to get a prediction of that time. We do this experiment ten times and see that our prediction is very accurate, and our strong impression grows that gravity is FORCING the ball to drop exactly the same way the theory predicts. How gravity does this is a complete mystery, until you go to General Relativity. But even then, you see mass mysteriously “forcing” space-time to curve.
As we make numerical predictions with gravity theory and see them to be accurate in laboratory measurements, we forget about the background mystery of HOW gravity does this. It just DOES it! Plus, THIS is numerically how strongly it does it, and THIS how quickly in time it gets the job done.
The strong impression grows that SOMEHOW Nature forces (or determines) the future behavior of falling balls with natural forces, as well as ALL particles of matter, some involving systems much more complicated that a dropped ball. In the history of science this kind of growth went on-and-on for centuries.
Finally, we look at the most complicated of all systems, the human brain with the course of thoughts, and the subjective feel of free will. Suddenly, our confidence in determinism forcing the behavior of all matter gets a surprising set of new challenges.
This is when the trouble starts.
Up until this point determinism and its “forcing” has been a VERY useful, powerful, and beautiful friend. But suddenly we see the possibility that this wonderful determinism is ALSO forcing every thought we think!
So, determinism is a friend, until it is applied to us and seems to threaten our very existence. If we are forced to do everything we do, what is left to be US? Nothing! It’s the ultimate existential quandary, if our personal identities are based on us having a great treasure of originality and uninfluenced behavior.
*/*/*
But I think that war is over, and determinism won.
Actually, I’m very deliberately trying to beat a new drum for determinism. I think it’s gotten a bad rap, and at one time I was doing some of that bad rapping. So, I made a peace treaty with determinism.
I let it rule; it lets me think I’m ruling.
I’m only half joking here. For many decades I held determinism in relative schizophrenic contempt. I loved it for all things except mental. It was a very rocky relationship.
So, to my audience I want to say: “Determinism is NOT GUILTY, after all!”
We can have free will (a little of it) AND we can keep our Precious & Proven Determinism, and give it a capital “D” as an appropriate apology for all the decades of trying to make it fall apart.
*/*/*
One reason determinism is so durable is because it is so VERY simple. It’s what makes science useful, and sometimes able to predict the future. It’s literally what makes the Sun come up tomorrow.
*/*/*
In the years 2005-2015 (just prior to my finding minFW) I went on a desperate war with determinism. All my attempts for decades to find determinism relief in Quantum and other means had failed. I tried every possible way to KILL determinism! It got funny, like a parody. I was tilting at THE windmill of science and I knew it. I was desperate.
I spend many years trying to get determinism relief to no avail. Now, in this new theory, I am actually USING determinism to achieve partial freedom. Determinism is VERY useful. It’s the very reason science is useful
I have learned that determinism is a friend to us when we want to get things done. I now believe that simple biology can use determinism for producing a liver, a heart, and a brain with consciousness and free will.
*/*/*
Being in control of your actions implies determinism. It is via determinism that the control happens.
Once we get it right, a habit is very useful. Determinism maintains good habits as well as bad. This is why at least some level of determinism is needed in order to MAINTAIN the “will” part of a “free will worth wanting.”
*/*/*
The reason most working scientists don’t believe in traditional FW is because they love determinism, and use it all the time in their work. Determinism has been a great friend everywhere in science and technology. Free will has been very poorly handled in recent centuries, with most time wasted on Libertarian ideas that try to evade Physics.
I don’t think that deterministic robotic behavior is all that bad, as long as it’s good sophisticated robotic behavior, i.e., principled and flexible, and an appropriately large repertoire of responses.
That’s pretty much all we really want in humans!
We want our friends and family to be principled and flexible. Principled means guided by, and even limited to some noble end. It is a CONSTRAINT on freedom to be principled. Too much freedom in the behavior of others usually makes me want to leave the room. I want my actions somewhat guided and constrained, and I want the same in my companions.
The freedom minFW offers is not sky high and way out there (like LibFW), but instead is highly constrained. Looking at minFW closely you’ll see that the freedom is limited to that internal set of standard(s) or expectation(s) or creed(s) that I mention is installed by teaching at a young age, usually by family and then friends and teachers.
*/*/*
So, the minimal freedom I think we have for behavior, decisions, and performances is that we are (partially) free to change courses from the one we are on now, to a course that better aligns with our installed internal expectations.
*/*/*
A great deal of respect should be restored to determinism. I see clear notions of determinism as having started back in Newton’s time and it developed and strength in the early 1800’s to become a real dominant and respected feature in science. Later in the 1800s confidence in this kind of determinism grew and then electricity and magnetism seemed to act the same way. So, Determinism grew to be King around the mid to late 1800s.
Something in nature makes things happen, determines the courses of atoms, is the big determining Factor. Whatever you want to call it.
It has nothing to do with predictability. It’s a Wonderful luxury when we are able to predict with the math, and an even greater luxury when the math agrees with the laboratory measurements. But all that is an add-on luxury to determinism. If we humans are unable to work out the math, we need not worry because Nature has it all worked out already.
The bottom line is that something in nature makes it all happen, and it always makes it happen right. That’s where the ideas of laws came in for Newton.
*/*/*
Here are some of these SAME thoughts in a different format.
So, what the heck is determinism?
Determinism determines what happens.
Atoms are blind and mindless.
There are no
free will decisions made
at the low level of atoms,
according to the best of science.
And this is a very good thing.
From this blind obedience of atoms
we get a stable and predictable world.
Without determinism
bossing atoms around,
tables would not be solid
and water would not be splashy.
Without determinism
your phone would not work.
Nothing at all
would work right.
Without determinism
operating at the lower levels,
Annie couldn’t guarantee that
the Sun would come out tomorrow.
So, we all should love determinism,
those of us who like
to eat every day.
And scientists love it even more.
It makes their work possible…..
At the lower levels,
down in the biology level,
and chemistry level,
and atomic level,
determinism is a very useful thing.
Determinism is a name for
the ability of science
to sometimes predict
what is going to happen.
Because of determinism
both nature and science
are never whimsical,
and always consistent.
Determinism looks real good
in the lower levels
but up here at the top level,
it seems to be a problem.
The same way
it can push atoms around
it seems that
it can push US around also!
And who wants to get pushed around?
So, determinism is a friend
when it’s confined to the lower levels
of mindless atoms and cells,
but up here at our level
it’s an enemy
that not only threatens
to bend our wills and desires,
it even presents an existential threat to us.
If determinism threatens
the reality of our will
down to the details
of what we
WILL TO THINK NEXT,
then what’s left to be us?
Are we just wet robots?
Who’s driving the bus?
You or your atoms?
At every level below
our top level of free will
our microscopic parts
(all of them, all the time)
blindly and accurately follow
laws of Biology,
laws of Chemistry,
laws of Physics.
Atoms determine molecular behavior,
molecules determine nerve cell behavior,
nerve cells determine the muscle cell behavior.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Quantum Considerations
How it happened, that Quantum Mechanics was completely dismissed from my considerations is a very long story. I’ll try several levels of abbreviation.
I originally wanted this exotic and difficult topic to help me find a way around determinism. Nearly all my adult life I had searched hard to find this, but I failed. Everyone else, that I looked up to in this, failed also. That’s the super-short story.
*/*/*
Now for detail, if anyone wants to know.
When I first heard of the battle between determinism and free will it was around my Senior year of High School, as I studied Elementary Physics. It was a big shock and I thought about it deeply.
I remember it well, first encountered this epic struggle. It involved simple determinism, not much more complicated than the NYC train example at the beginning of this chapter.
When I saw what it meant for the human brain and mind I literally trembled, the youthful lad that I was. It strongly motivated me to find anything to assist me in fighting this Fierce Foe of Determinism! I looked for tools and science writers to assist me in finding determinism relief, and it took me down many a dead end in the process. FASCINATING dead ends they all were! But they
NEVER got me satisfaction on free will.
*/*/*
Erwin Schrodinger wrote a tiny booklet in 1944 titled “What Is Life?” and made expert speculations as to where quantum could help in the areas of life, consciousness, and freewill. My High School Chemistry teacher turned me onto this around 1967, as a way free will can happen in the face of microscopic determinism. From that time on until 2015, I tried to work this quantum randomness angle, and I always looked for current experts who might be taking up this ball and running with it. I’ve also devoured many pop level science writings on it. In 1967 and for the next three decades there seemed to be a lot of promise in quantum that could save free will from determinism.
But as those decades progressed, NONE of those writings ever got any farther than Schrodinger’s 1944 level of speculations and the promise.
*/*/*
My relatively recent conclusions are that quantum is overkill for describing the human brain. I now am aware of some much simpler mechanisms that can help explain the mysterious stuff in the brain, and there is far less need to look to quantum for help.
But as far as our human machinery goes, I think humans have over-glamorized the human thought processes for centuries. They have, from mere introspection, assumed that magical powers are involved in the human brain. Embedding this idea in our culture for many centuries, the search for these mythical elements hidden in consciousness has led many researchers far astray from the biological reality. I know I did this 50 years ago. It took me decades to slowly see this, and do something about it.
*/*/*
The story gets a little richer, though.
Also, while in High School, my Calculus teacher told me about Gödel’s Theorem as possibly being a mathematics analog of quantum’s uncertainty principle. He cautioned me that it was VERY complicated, but that it may offer ways to explain consciousness and free will. He said that Gödel’s Theorem held a lot of promise. The year, again, was 1967.
*/*/*
Fifty years is a lot of time for a story to progress, but it did. It was an exciting adventure searching here and there, pondering it all, and seeking people with whom I could discuss these things. I was an amateur, just reading what I could digest, and keeping my finger on the pulse of the field the best I could. Some years I’d even break out the old calculus texts to help me delve deeper into the math of quantum.
There were a number of popular writers in the 70s and 80s that brought up the idea (and the promise) of quantum (and/or Gödel) relief from determinism, but no full-fledged Physicists would spend much time with it. I was on the lookout for them, though.
Then, finally in 1989, Roger Penrose, one of the world’s most distinguished Physicists took up this Quest into consciousness. Being world renown as a top Mathematician as well, Penrose ALSO took on the other “determinism relief” hope I had hoped for: Gödel’s Theorem. I waited over 20 years for this, and ate up all he offered for the next several years.
*/*/*
Penrose pumped out two giant books into the 1990s on all this. Both of these books are wonderful. He is a great and authoritative teacher of both quantum and Gödel. It was a vast learning experience for me in quantum math and Gödel math. BUT they went nowhere new on consciousness and free will, and were all speculation and promise for new breakthroughs in the future.
I was elated when Penrose started doing this. The entire title of the first book is: “The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics” (1989). It was the authoritative pronouncement FROM THE TOP: that there was a lot of promise and hope in quantum and Gödel for determinism relief. It was a high point of my life to see this point made in public by one of the world’s leading scientists.
A few year later his next book was on much the same topic… and much the same promise and hope: “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness” (1994).
Both books are perfect opportunities to learn lots of math and lots of physics, but for the consciousness part they just run around in circles and say “Maybe next time we'll figure the rest of it all out.” When it was all said and done, all he was able to do with consciousness is point to the future with promise… just like my HS teachers two decades prior.
So, Penrose failed, and that was 25 years ago.
At that time, he was about the most qualified human to work the consciousness applications for both of these fields, quantum and Gödel. Yet, he really didn't have anything new to say on the subject as far as advancing what I had already found out. He just constructed a beautiful frame around it, and then beefed it up with neon colored paint.
There I was in the mid-1990s, only very slowly noticing that Penrose was failing me, because he was so entertaining in the process. By the end of the decade, though, this was coming more and more to my awareness. I also was noticing a lot of intellectual opposition from neuroscience, insisting that Penrose had stepped outside his specialty field, and was not making any sense.
This had a gradual effect on me. The next 10 years were relatively fruitless on this front. I was very discouraged, but still learning and poking around for any light. My enthusiasm for quantum relief from determinism was pretty much dead. Similarly, the hopes I had in Gödel’s Theorem were fading fast as I got more technical understanding of what it was all about. All these topics were very beautiful in themselves, but useless for explaining free will and the mind.
So, about 5 years ago I gave up on finding any help from quantum and Gödel for Free Will.
It was about then that some other areas of research brought me to consider the new paths that eventually led to minFW. Determinism manipulations, like what
sailboats do, brought up whole new ways of thinking. I gradually started seeing that some small but useful, new kinds of freedoms can be “extracted” out of the deterministic world, and soon it was a whole new world for me to explore.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
There DEFINITELY is determinism in Quantum, but it is modified.
Just a quick overview of what Quantum does: Mostly, it describes, predicts, and explains how atoms work and stick together. That’s the super short story.
*/*/*
The longer story gets very involved; this world of sticky atoms. It involves how each element is stable, and for how long. Another thing quantum works well with are details like how strongly certain atoms stick together, and at what angles.
When atoms are heated up they glow, each element glows with its own signature set of colors. This in itself is a marvel that quantum works well with.
Another marvel of quantum is when light shines on atoms, each element responds differently, again according to its own element’s color-signature.
Quantum math, where it is workable so far, can explain portions of these details, and when it does, it’s the most numerically accurate and precise thing any science has accomplished so far, by far. Quantum accuracy is astoundingly high. But, actually solving the math is a huge barrier, because it is so complicated.
Here’s another amazing thing about Quantum. Though it is difficult to solve the equations, when people do succeed in solving them, the numerical predictions they have made have NEVER been found to be wrong in a laboratory. Not yet, anyways. Where Quantum is successful, it is VERY successful!
After that it describes why certain atomic nuclei are stable and why, and stuff about other things nuclear, and far, far removed from everyday life.
It’s mostly only the sticky atoms and glowing atoms that we run into in living everyday life.
All of these quantum things take place in a world very tiny and very far removed from the world of single neuron. The world of a single neuron is very tiny and very far removed from the large world of a brain that houses any kind, type, brand, model, or theory of free wills and not-so-free wills.
*/*/*
Determinism gets a makeover in quantum for some things, some of the time.
For instance, in the Hydrogen atom, the exact position of the electron is not nailed down (or determined) in Quantum like it is in Newtonian Mechanics (and that train headed out of NYC). Instead of the electrons having an exact position, an electron “cloud” is imagined. It describes the LIKELINESS of an electron being at such and such a position in the Hydrogen atom.
But no one in real life ever needs to know about exact electron positions. It’s how atoms stick together that that affects us through Chemistry. Quantum helps Chemists in their manipulations of atoms by telling them about the energy levels of the electron clouds, and their shapes.
The shapes of these electron clouds are DETERMINED by the Schrödinger Equation. The shapes of some of these electron clouds or shells are quite exotic.
Each shell has its own energy level, and the electrons are thought of as “smeared” around the whole shell, with indeterminate location. But the energy level of each shell is completely DETERMINED by the Schrödinger Equation.
There is plenty of determinism in Quantum; modified for some parameters. It seems that ALL of the quantum indeterminacy gets smoothed or filtered out once larger items, like molecules and cells, are considered.
Quantum helps explain chemistry and chemical reactions. Free will is up on a level much higher than atoms. It takes many atoms to make a brain cell, and many brain cells to get something organized enough to house a “will.”
*/*/*
Most of the quirks of quantum determinism filter out SO WELL in the macro world that a potential Nobel Prize always is looming for the first laboratory Physicist who can show any kind of MACRO manifestation of quantum weirdness. Most of that weirdness is filtered out by the noise in the world, and what we deal with most of the time is very noisy and very Newtonian.
*/*/*
Quantum can explain all kinds of complicated atomic situations. It could be involved in lots of the brain's chemical interactions, but where I wanted to find some quantum action was up a few levels higher in the free will vs. determinism paradox.
Many others, besides me, have worked on this including some very famous Physicists. We all had great hopes many years ago that quantum would help here also. It didn't. It was all promise and no delivery. What Quantum delivers to free will, at most, is noise. It’s just mere static that has no intelligence behind it.
*/*/*
Quantum helping to explain micro brain chemistry reactions is totally expectable. Quantum explaining macro free will, so far, has been all promise, no delivery. I gave up on it when I saw other, more simple and classical ways to have some freedom.
Now I look at quantum and Gödel as overkill, and not needed if there is a simple set of classical forces that can explain our freedom to navigate.
Both the brain and sailboats use pretty exotic Classical Physics. To me they both are very mysterious and counter-intuitive, but neither NEEDS to drag in Quantum Mechanics. It's exotic Newtonian determinism that gives mind and sailing their freedoms.
*/*/*
End of Chapter 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's either ALL bulls*it or you're stealing bandwidth to self-publish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We discussed this a little.
I made a note to beef up my pay-pal so's I can donate.
*/*/*/*/*
These chapters of mine are not at all ready to publish.
This is not a self-publishing.
It is submitted for review.
I was hoping (and still am) for some discussion of the ideas.
I have been discussing almost all of the material in these chapters in pieces for about 5 years in Free Will discussion forums. So I am accustomed to discussing these ideas against all the characters on the Internet.
I say against, because each idea gets opposed. I also expect fierce opposition here, but I want opposition to the ideas, not opposition to me or my background, both technical and spiritual.
It's the ideas that need discussing.
*/*/*/*/*
I totally agree with you, Rocky, this should be in the Open Forum because Free Will interests just about everybody.
It wasn't my decision to put it here in About the Way.
*/*/*/*/*/*
I only have one small fraction of a chapter left.
It is a General Theory of deterministic freedoms.
The sailboat comes up again a little, so please wake up T-Bone.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
zzzzzZZZZZZ
ZZZZzzzz ….the greatest cargoes of life are quietly pirated at sea….what…what…oh I'm up?
Edited by T-Boneediting...take my typos away
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Malarkey. And No, WE discussed nothing. I posted. That's it. I consider you to be a con artist and a thief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You may be mistaken here.
Remember, for this whole theory I am ONLY talking about natural man's free will, man with no spirit.
VPW didn't spend a lot of time talking about the natural man's mind, other than what it is NOT good at: knowing God. VPW spent more time talking about the mind of a Christian with spirit.
But VPW did make it a point to say that natural man had free will.
My narrative on the natural man mind and it's free will does not contain the slightest hint of that mind ever getting spirit or born again. I am not writing a book that leads to that. I have different aims, so I am writing about an area that SOUNDS antithetical to PFAL, because PFAL does not want to focus on that natural man mind as much as I do.
Maybe that is why it sounds so strange to you.
It's definitely NOT for the average grad's consumption for spiritual growth and enlightenment. It is to move laboratory scientists to look for mechanisms like the ones I am predicting.
Eventually, I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists. Meanwhile, the rule of thumb I get from all this for free will is don't give up, keep trying, and keep trying different methods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’re not making any sense!
Are you stoned or tripping right now as you write this stuff?
Heard of people going off the deep end…I think you sailed off the edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am asking what you mean by your statement:
"Here’s the thing - there’s stuff in your thesis that are antithetical to PFAL / wierwille’s or Christian systematic theology"
And I offered a possible reason why you said that.
No big mystery?
Why? Are you still asleep?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This stuff definitely sounds strange to me…maybe cuz it IS strange…or it could be I’m not smoking what you’re smoking…uhm…what are you smoking?
oh that reminds me...we used to play this tune in one of the bands I was in...have another hit
" I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists."
YIKES !
run for your lives!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
My statement interprets itself
I see no reason why I should /should not/ should / should not accept a possible reason that you think
No big mystery why asleep...didn't you figure out the mystery why I am sleep-posting...or are you dreaming of reading this post before I had a chance to decide if a free will is something an attorney would never draw up...at least not on Etch A Sketch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
39. A priest, a rabbi, VP and Dennet sail upwind into a bar. A few hours after the bar closes the single bartender ends up pregnant.
From a deterministic perspective who is the father?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The music coordinator. When in doubt, it can only be the music coordinator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thats when vp says “if you’re not familiar with how this ends - then let me hump a few bars “
Edited by T-BoneA 1, a 2, a 1,2,3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.