Free Will - Life, entropy and information

[chapellkarina]

loving this video.. You have great stuff on here!

[rozeboosje]

@chapellkarina Thank you :-)

[zimtran007]

You really should convert to "Marmetism" (the worship of Punksatony Phil) As worship of the great gopher of western Pennsylvania relieves all of life's anxious paradoxes. ( [dot] punxsutawneyphil [dot] com )

[zimtran007]

I also disagree with you totally that life results in a local decrease of entropy, you should see my brothers bedroom ! There's loads of entropy in there where he lives.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 Maybe your brother is [sob] dead!?

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje No but the neat-nick in him is.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 ROFL - I take your word for that :P

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje No just [sob] a slob.

[zimtran007]

Is the "Mind" the same thing as the "soul", or are they different ?

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 I have no idea what a "soul" is supposed to be. A "mind" is a manifestation of neuronal patterns, it emerges from a living brain in action. If the brain is sophisticated enough - whatever THAT means ;-)

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje The "soul" mean you, just you. It's what you mean when you say "me" or "I" or "myself", no need to over complicate it.  It's about as simple as a concept gets.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 So the soul is a concept held in minds. You have a concept of "Pino", and I have a concept I call "me", "myself", and "I" and about which "my" brain instructs "my" fingers to write sentences talking about "myself" even presenting itself as "I". In your definition, "soul" is an internal representation of the organism itself. It's not one that sounds familiar to me or for which I would use that label - "soul", nor one that I can see "surviving" after an organism's death.

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje ... What does "surviving death" have to do with it ? Your "soul" is YOU, My soul is ME, your cat's soul is HIM. etc. etc. One can overcomplicate this if one likes, but it's unnessesary. That's all that's mean't by the word "soul". Think of it this way maybe, The "soul" is the mirror that reflects the universe. If the soul disappears the unverse doesn't appear at all. When a tree falls it makes no sound if there is no-one there to hear it.

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje incidentally, That's all that is mean't by the phrase"Man is the image of God". It's just a different way of saying something like "The soul is the mirror in which reality is reflected" (if that doesn't sound too goofy). The phrase doesn't mean humans have some special right to be egotistical, it just means that soul is a mirror, a reflection, of the "wholly other", ...which means the "everything else".

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 Of course there is no clear demarcation between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is this organism's focal point in reality. At its center it seems quite solid and unambiguously "me", and most of reality seems equally clearly "other", but the transition from one to the other is smooth and non-discrete. "reality" and "me" are inextricably linked.

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje No I was just pointing out that the phrase "Man is made in the image of God", was just an attempt to "get at" the idea, that's all the phrase really means. We're never going to find some prose or set of words that describes what the soul is. But we don't have to, because we are souls, so we have inside knowledge about what a soul is you might say. you don't need "soul" defined, because you are one.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 But the "you" you speak of is not the "I" I think of.

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje How do you know that the "I" that you think of is not the "you" that I speak of ? See, now I'm going to ask for proof your assertion: (("I" you think of) != ("you" I speak of)). Walk me through the logic.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 The "I" I think of is equated with an entity consisting of a self image based on over 40 years of accumulated experiences, the overwhelming majority of which you are entirely ignorant of and unfamiliar with. The "you" you think of consists of some moving images on a web site and a few, admittedly, rather enjoyable dialogues and your impressions of them. There is certainly some overlap between the two, but they can't be identical.

[zimtran007]

@rozeboosje Ohhhhhhh ! You were referring to "you" personally and "I" personally. Where as I thought you were referring to the "you" and "I" in the more abstract sense. In which case both "you" and "I" would refer to the same person / soul, depending on whether it was you or I doing the referring. Yes, in that case they would not be identical, and in fact could not be. Unless perhaps I am the future you, but still then the concept of "identical" would be problematic.

[rozeboosje]

@zimtran007 Most certainly :-)

[rozeboosje]

Depends on how you look at it. What do you think "free will" should be? I find that the typical definition of the term would refer to something that is not only physically impossible but even something that I wouldn't find particularly desirable. This series doesn't set out to show that we DO have that type of "free will". Instead I'm looking for a way to avoid throwing the baby away with the bathwater.

[Robinsonero]

So... My computer has freewill? lol

j/k

[rozeboosje]

[grin]

But who knows, in a few decades' time?

;-)

[MotionFur]

Well, I plan on watching the entire series [just started, and need to head out to work.] But so far the first point of contention I think I have with you is that I think the brain governs the mind, not the other way around. To say that the mind governs the brain, isn't that free will already right there?

The difference between software and computers, is that software can still be around even if no computers are in existence. And I can manipulate your mind by changing your brain.

[rozeboosje]

A couple of small quibbles:

1) Software is written externally and implemented on a computer. The mind *emerges* from the brain. Other than that, though, I agree, and that leads me to point 2)

2) The mind is like running software. It needs a "computer" to run on. Now you could use the same software on different computers, but it cannot run *without* a computer.

But I like your ideas, and I think you may like where I'm taking this. Thanks for checking it out.

[GetMeThere1]

The fact that computers CAN be programmed to do VERY complex things, through simple logic gating, works AGAINST your arguments. All the impressive stuff we see from computers is VERIFIABLY deterministic--and, no computers have yet spontaneously given rise to "free will."

[rozeboosje]

You might want to hear me out. I'm not arguing against anything you say.

[GetMeThere1]

I've listened to the "conclusion" vid once (and everything in between). I'll give a more complete answer there (or in a PM). But, my initial impression is that just because you've demonstrated (probably) that the outcome of thinking is unpredictable doesn't make it non-deterministic--any more than the gravity interactions of three bodies are non-deterministic....even though they can't be "determined."

[rozeboosje]

Nope. And I never said that.

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 computers have yet spontaneously given rise to consciousness either! Computers are a terrible comparison for the brain, these are very different structures. Computers unlike life do not currently break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. get out of the 1940's..

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : AFAIK, nothing has changed since the 1940's: nothing breaks any of the laws of thermodynamics. Furthermore, brains do what computers do: process information through the use of hardware and "software."

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 Shannons information theory for one, bayesian inference for 2,mandelbrot for 3. computers do not and cannot have absolute global synchrony, computers do not maximise complexity, computer hardware is not structured for bayesian inference, computers do not use relative computation either.

[Interactivesystems]

@Interactivesystems computers do not have an equilibrium state of complexity, they are highly ordered systems, that veer on a way street towards entropy. brains however are stochastic and oscillate around complexity for some time before succumbing to entropy. If you built a small computer using neurons you'd find it highly unreliable, the brain is complex not ordered.

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : You don't know what you're talking about....but you're good at pretending you do. Congratulations. My suggestion: give up the new age reading list, and go back to school.

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 you think recursive processing is "new age" hippie shit? Its called "how the brain works". The latest brain simulations using computers arent even close, or anywhere near to that of an ants brain, are huge and use massive amounts of power, they do not use enough parallel processing. These are very different means of computation. get over it. If you think brains are like computers explain how and in what way...

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 "contemporary computer as metaphor for brain" = "computational theory of mind"... hahaha. These are completely distinct concepts... Is that you making the "standard mistakes" that a PhD holder in molecular and cell biology is susceptible to.." yet again.

[GetMeThere1]

I see nothing of substance here (and, in that statement somewhere, probably lurks a pun).

Sure, one can declare a "mind" as an abstraction. But no abstraction (no matter how "real") has ever independently given rise to "instructions" to a material system to carry out.

I think you make the standard mistake: You interpret the extreme complexity of the brain (which is able to "create" abstraction) as "free will."

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 "I think you make the standard mistake" and assume there is causality purely from the action of past events, and that the outcome of every action can be determined. The is demonstrably false. Absorber theory holds the outcome affects the action,like the action affects the outcome. Determinism holds but only when summing the past and future histories. face forward in time we have missing variables

[Interactivesystems]

@Interactivesystems I agree that to assume he reality of the appearance of randomness implies "free will" is a leap no doubt, consciousness lags behind neural activity anyway. Its more likely that free will would be a retrospective summation at best. However to deny the function of randomness in the brain, compare it to a computer and say computers have no free will therefore we cant is ridiculous.

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : Quantum theory has nothing to do with how brains work--except perhaps to cause some "random" firings that could effect a mental outcome.

Unlike you, I'm bound to make the "standard mistakes" that a PhD holder in molecular and cell biology is susceptible to.

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 Youve compared the brain to a series of boolean logic gates, In context of entropy for chris sakes! A ph biologist would not make a comparison to that of a computer, its absurd. While I have asked, and summarised the distinctions you have yet to offer a single validation of this point of yours...why? because you know its indefensible codswallop.

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : This argument is silly. The brain is WHOLLY composed of highly interconnected neurons, each with well-defined causes for firing--nothing more. Sure, their are many types of neurons, and many express their genes in response to conditions or location in the brain. That's all there is. If you have ANY evidence that more is involved, you haven't presented it. In form, it's easy to see the similarity to a computer, with each neuron being a gate--not necessarily boolean.

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : "random" is not equivalent to "free will." If anything, it could be called "random will." Besides, the "macro" architecture of the brain would act as a HUGE damper to ANY RARE firings that might be caused by quantum realities (that is, IF a firing can be said to be caused by quantum factors--such an event has never been established, and is in fact unlikely).

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 der.. ofcourse random activity doesn't mean there is free will, Its a leap ive said that already. Im am arguing that your use of a computer as similar to a computer and the implications for free will is ridiculous. N

[Interactivesystems]

@Interactivesystems Neurons have "with well-defined causes for firing", no they dont. (seizure activity and a loss of consciousness have ordered neuronal correlated firing, consciousness itself is marked by stochastic behaviour!) By definition the causality of activity (50%) is not well defined, thats why its complex.

[Interactivesystems]

@Interactivesystems "interconnected neurons, each with well-defined causes for firing--nothing more" "nothing more!!!" LMAO!!! yeah neurons theyre just like binary switches "nothing more"! hahahaha!!! And you say you have phd in biology, the degree of simplification you describe a cells activity is not that of a biologist, its that of an IT worker. Yeah neurons theyre just gates "nothing more"!!!

[Interactivesystems]

@Interactivesystems You obviously havent studied neuronal behaviour at all, even to the most basic degree to describe them as "nothing more" than gates.

[GetMeThere1]

@Interactivesystems : You might check out the "computational theory of mind." What I'm telling you is the standard story that would be given by essentially anyone of my educational level (yes, a PhD in molecular and cell biology). It's not mystery, not a baseless theory. It's the basic assumption of virtually all neurobiological research going on today.

I have nothing more to say to you on this topic--other than to note your extreme emotionalism and poorly-informed ideas.

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 When an idiot describes inter-neuronal activity as "well defined", they are obviously an uninformed twit. As I said well defined correlated activity is only apparent in epileptic seizures and hypoxic states..but seeing as you dont understand shannon, you might struggle with this basic truth.

[Interactivesystems]

@GetMeThere1 We can have sensitivity to a single photon for chris-sakes!

Baylor, Lamb and Yau

Smell receptors also do not respond to molecule shape but vibration.

you might want to read the work of

Luca Turin University College London

The terrible real world computer metaphor you use is very distinct from "computational theory of mind." btw

[Rybot9000]

Nice video. I followed you up to the mind-brain dichotomy and this is where we diverge. The antecedent complexity in prior layers of reality, e.g. quantum mechanics, converges in the upper layer. That is to say that classical Newtonian objects are relatively unaffected by quantum events. Therefor neurobiology is precisely where our focus should be. Unfortunately the software-hardware dichotomy doesn't hold. It's much more useful to think in terms of an orchestra.

[rozeboosje]

Good analogy! Thanks.

[desertlight]

Never thought of my mind using my organic brain and technology as a Turing Machine - why not? My kids are starting to act like the Borg, always some tech thing in hand or looking at a screen. Maybe surgical implants are next. ENTROPY - I was once bothered by Entropy running down the "eternal" universe then realized a "big crunch" could reverse entropy. If this happened, gravity literally would be a "conservative" field.

[dQuarters]

Very interesting.

[rozeboosje]

Thank you. Glad to see you're checking out a few of my vids. Peace.

[no4giveness]

The mind..... That was a great analogy.

[rozeboosje]

Thank you!

[no4giveness]

Dismiss you as a nut case. I only listen to nut csaes, they are uaually more sane.

[rozeboosje]

Then you've arrived at the right channel :-)

[no4giveness]

I alway tought of time as the transfer of information. I like these videos

[rozeboosje]

Cheers!

[randyhelzerman]

So when I make ice cubes I'm creating life? MUWHA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[marklethanarkle]

i don't agree, but i'm glad that you're tackling this topic. can't wait for the next one.

[kelark]

It seems like you are saying that the mind guides and instructs the body. But the brain is the body and thought originates in the brain as electrical chemical reactions if the mind is a product of the brain there is no distinction between them.

[EuroCntricHipyChrist]

you said it better than I could have.

[AtheistAaron]

Fantastic video. You have eloquently stated what I have failed to be able to put into words - we are more than the sum of our parts! I can't wait for part III!

[rozeboosje]

Thank you. Now that the furore on my "Nod" video has started to abate a bit I can start thinking about this again :-)

[rUTokKIN2ME]

5 stars by the way. I don't know what anyone else is thinking. Maybe they feel they have to understand you and agree with you to give five stars. ???? Peace.

[rozeboosje]

You're welcome. You need to realise that this is only the start of it. We'll be travelling long windy roads before we get to our destination. And keep in mind my response to worldlystone earlier in these comments :-)

[rUTokKIN2ME]

Pino!!!! Great Video. Amazing how you and I can draw such different conclusions after considering almost identical ideas. Bravo Sir!

[youseanchantube]

rozeboosje

I think its best that you go read Richard Dawkin's "The Extended Phenotype". I agree on your stand on a deterministic universe, but you need to clarify what you mean exactly about a mind.

[rozeboosje]

Yes, I have read that. It's excellent. My ideas here are based on concepts developed by Daniel Dennett in "Freedom Evolves". Sadly, I'm currently preoccupied with that "Nod" thing I'm doing, but I will get back to this and complete it. It's a work in progress.

[42ADENT]

gota love ya tags .

[worldlystone]

Glad you're making these vids about free will.I don't see how freewill can be real,but I'm all ears.

[rozeboosje]

It is entirely possible that halfway through the series I realise I'm talking shite. But I hope not :-)

[trick0171]

I see where you are going with this and myself take the deterministic stance on "free will"; however, I would say the physical substrate is what drives the "mind"...not the other way around. In other words, the so-called set of instructions is really what is already imposed on the physical substrate. ...

[trick0171]

...The mind does not use the physical substrate to impose itself and execute. It takes a secondary physical substrate to impose the change on to the other physical substrate, which in turns drives the "mind" (that can effect other physical substrates). Whether that substrate be on/off charges representing binary code, or synapses/neurons/chemicals strengthening or weakening.

[rozeboosje]

The thing is, it's a feedback mechanism. The "mind" emerges out of the original patterns laid down during gestation, but then it starts feeding back into itself, creating a "self" image. But I'm getting ahead of myself again.

Yes. I will be speculating a lot. (blush)

[trick0171]

Heh...you lost me on the "...feeding back into itself.." part. I will suspend judegement on what that means exactly until I see the next video that you make on this. :)

Thanks for the thought provoking vids!

[OparinsBulldog]

Neat thought, but this is an over simplification. This would be true if the information in your brain were static, but it is not. As you receive information, the body affects the mind. Your neurophysiology affects how you make decisions and interpret new data.

[rozeboosje]

Yes that's true. It's a feedback mechanism. Like I said in another response, we can't take the analogy too far. Stay tuned for further episodes.

[rUTokKIN2ME]

Or you are just not taking the analogy far enough!! So close, and yet so far........... <--sigh..

[burnvictim77]

You keep telling me that I'm wrong, but you don't substantiate any of those claims: 1) Show me evidence of a "mind" as a location. 2) Show me evidence that we can learn anything at all without the assumption of cause and effect.

[rozeboosje]

Hi there burnvictim77; I think you may have been watching a few videos on related subjects and accidentally posted this in response to the wrong one as I have no recollection of any conversation with you leading up to this comment.

[burnvictim77]

You aren't telling me, burnvictim77, this. You are telling, me the view "but you are wrong."

I'm a causal determinist, and I'd like to understand how you can claim that you *know* my position to be false.

[burnvictim77]

*Me the viewer

[lirpa69]

This is part two in a series. In the first part he asked us to withhold questions or assumptions.

Basically, what I'm saying is, he's building up to something.

Roze, just a thought, you may want to make this vid a response to your first one.

[burnvictim77]

Yes, I watched the first part. And whether or not he wants us to save the questions to the end really depends on how long this thing will turn out to be. Would you watch a 2 hr lecture in which NO evidence seems to be provided to support the thesis?

[Naphra]

Good stuff, man. Have you read David Deutsch's Fabric of Reality? Wholeheartedly recommend it. Also recommend The Feynman Lectures on Computation, for an account of the physics of computation (including thermodynamics).

[Naphra]

Right off the bat I'd disagree with you, though, about distinguishing between a mind and a brain (I'd also disagree about fundamentally distinguishing between hardware and software); such distinction appears to me as unnecessary. But I'd like to hear more of your views on this before arguing against them.

[rozeboosje]

I hear ya; after all you can clearly show damage to similar parts of the brain affecting similar "modules" of the mind in different people, so we mustn't take the analogy too deep. I would also look at changes in the behaviour of matter in phase changes.

[x71isnwor]

You keep making me think more and more.

[rozeboosje]

Yay!!! BTW - your Bear series seriously rocks.

[inmendham]

You suggest thinking about it, but I think that's counterproductive to your purpose. The more I think about it, the more I see of the rabbit climbing into the hat. One of a bunch of observations would be that the thinking brain is not primarily running static software. Brain software is essentially capable of reprogramming itself ie. altering the instructions... this capacity can effectively change "will" but it does not "free will" from the rigid restraints of cause and effect.

[rozeboosje]

Patience, my friend, patience. And yes, there will be a rabbit in the hat, but I hope I'll manage to give it wriggle room.

[lirpa69]

This is deep. Good metaphor, although I have a problem making that leap in asserting that something can exist in the physical world without physical matter. However, the same can be said for software. It only "exists" on physical media in the form of a bunch of ones and zeros... My husband has a degree in materials science, can't wait to see what he thinks about this. I hear the word substrate all the time.

Great video!

Check out kimochinews. His stuff is similarly thought provoking.

[rozeboosje]

I think the leap to make is to realise that once the patterns become important, the substrate ceases to be. Obviously it still needs to be there, but if you took a brain and replaced all its neurons with other physical entities equally capable of communicating and laying new connections, the mind would never notice. Just like good software can run equally well on many different computers.

[lirpa69]

Update: He liked it. He did exactly what you instructed everyone not to do though, and went happily about prognosticating your conclusion. Then we watched your first video in this series and told him "so there!".

[rozeboosje]

LOL! Who knows, he might be right ;-)

[rozeboosje]

BTW, April. Just wondering; you know I'm working toward the conclusion that, yes, we can have free will. And without giving his prognostication away, did he expect my line of argument to be valid or flawed?

[lirpa69]

=)

He said it was valid. He did say that if you zoom out to the millions of molecules level you will see similarities. Don't think this refutes anything, just him adding his two cents.

He went where inmendham is going, that the difference between us and computers is that we program ourselves.

[lirpa69]

Ugh! I just realized I did what you said not to do and gave away his prognostication... I promise I am teachable!! =)

[rozeboosje]

Hey, don't worry. It wasn't a command, just a polite request, and unless you're clearly jumping to the wrong conclusions I don't mind that much.

[rozeboosje]

Thanks for the pointer!

[kurtilein3]

i think your way of dealing with the subject is great, when you get people to understand that our mind is a universal turing-machine (which is true) you get lots of interesting arguments for the discussion. i didnt think of that, its a great idea.

looking forward for the next episode ^^

[rozeboosje]

Thank you!

[CousinoMacul]

I don't know if I have the <i>will</i> to hold back my questions.

[rozeboosje]

:-) - very good observation, and I <i>will</i> address this.

[Daanando]

If it shows that the human mind is a quantum brain then we are hardly a universal turing machine.

[rozeboosje]

Bit confusing use of "mind" and "brain" there but I would observe that quantum computers are able to do the sort of "parallel processing" current computers are incapable of, but that doesn't change that formally they are still Turing machines, and there are still limits to what they can compute. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

[redcardisgone]

thinking, thinking. i'm holding my questions for the moment. :)

[rozeboosje]

Cheers.