Stephen Wolfram, Unpredictable Causality (Chaos), and Free Will

[Shotosboring1stpick]

I wonder if this will be a bad equation of chaos = humans not unique and accidental artificial intelligence + nihilism + ubermensch + existentalism + survival of the fittest + error term(omitted variables)? Ouch.

[NorthernRealmJackal]

Great video ..besides from that red-neck voice-over at the end, stating (without presenting a single usable argument) that the first 220 seconds of the video are "laughable", because the point-of-view presented herein is not "commonly accepted".

[swdmn]

"And it is this, I believe, that is the ultimate origing of the apparent freedom of human will. For even though all the components of our brains presumably follow definite laws, I strongly suspect that their overall behavior corresponds to an irreducible computation whose outcome can never in effect be found by reasonable laws." -- 'A New Kind of Science' page 750

[swdmn]

...act in ways that _seem_ free of obvious predictive laws. Can't see him defining free will anywhere, he just gives an explanation to why it appears to be free. His position seems pretty clear to me: There is no free will, but our computational irreducibility gives that illusion.

[unseenstrings]

@swdmn, I didn't read the book you provided a link for. Seems I should have. I was basing what I said on what he said in the video, i.e., ""Like, for example, for the problem of free will: It's always seemed mysterious how we manage to act in ways that seem free of obvious predictive laws, if it's the case that our brains actually follow definite underlying laws." Was he implying that it is not the case that our brains actually follow definite underlying laws? I don't think so. But others might.

[unseenstrings]

Besides, I felt the sciences of the brain were making pretty good headway in understanding the underlying mechanism of "mind," "will," and "consciousness." Of course, such would be necessary in order for the brain to be replicated electronically as he predicts. Well, admittedly, humans have always filled gaps in knowledge with myth to ease the fear of the unknown. Moreover, humans have historically reinforced their self-esteem to the point of egomaniacalism. They probably will continue to do so.

[MattMillwardSongs]

@unseenstrings Genetics are a large part of 'free will'. Explaining why family will make similar decisions and/or share opinions. Wether there is an environmental aspect to this is undetermined, but you cannot deny that someone outside of your family is more likely to make a vastly conflicting decision to your own, ergo it puts a quantified box around your illusion of free will, creating a series of patterns the same as something as simple as the colour of your eyes.

[unseenstrings]

@MattMillwardSongs, seems to me that in order for genetics to be a large part of 'free will,' the term as commonly used would need to be given a new definition to fit the new usage.

Also, determined can mean either caused or ascertained. Confusion arises when the average person reasons that undetermined means the opposite of determined. However, just because something cannot be ascertained does not mean it is without cause. Undetermined environmental influences are merely unascertained.

[unseenstrings]

Chaos theory suggest apparently chaotic phenomena can give rise to complexity. This coincides with the findings of Stephen Wolfram's Mathematica software application and the Wolfram Alpha computational knowledge engine. However, is natural selection a purely chaotic phenomenon? Is it possible natural selection is a separate equation that enters the picture of the simple program running on Mathematica? Can the unpredictability of pure chaos becomes predictable as the result of natural selection?