"We" in response to who is observing is a correct reference especially when relating to (pardon the reference) oneself. The brain is a collective of peripherals which can function as an individual entity if they are isolated. But to function in this reality it is required that they act as one which we interpret as self yet they must preform the function to which evolved within the frame work or dysfunction in some area will result. Our self-perception a byproduct of this synchronization.
I am a bit confused now. You will be hard pressed to find a "free-willer" that denies that predictions can be made, even regarding the actions of individuals. After all, free will is just one cause among many. For example, one might predictably wish for a cheeseburger but also freely wish that they did not wish for a cheeseburger.
If you are willing to concede that predictions, and not determinations, are made about the future it seems to me free will has plenty of space to rest it's head.
Of course predictions can be made. How else would we perform scientific studies? On one level our brains use prediction as a major tool to function throughout the day. We subconsciously predict as we take each step across the room that the floor will remain in tact, that our legs will not fall off, etc. (see On Intelligence.) We use our memories of past experiences to draw conclusions and predict the future. But to "predict" ONLY refers to something living things do with our limited resources.
I think free will is simply the source of all un-caused happenings. This is a view I have constructed from alot of thought about physics and philosophy, notably of Robert Pirsig, but also other philosophizers. To me Robert Pirsig is a giant in this area, I highly recommend his writing.
Ultimately the implication of this view is that free will is the primary engine of time, and the universe as we know it is the moral history of free choices.
You expressed the fear that free will might be a manifestation of random quantum chaos. I certainly would not want my free will to be random either.
Free will cannot be random because it can only exist on the borderline between chaos and order. If free will fell off the line to either side, on one side the universe would be meaningless because it would be devoid of any structure (chaos), and if it fell of on the other side the structure would become meaningless because of its permanence.
I want to provide a though experiment to illustrate this idea, but I was unable to articulate it properly in the time I have right now, so I will post it tomorrow.
monkeymule -- One of my biggest pet peeves is the misuse of the word "chaos" in a situation like this, where it isn't clear whether you're referring to indeterminism, or the entirely deterministic discipline of Chaos Mathematics (Chaos Theory). In Chaos Theory, even the most chaotic of systems contains patterns that repeat - if not exactly the same each time - in recognizable variations (like how each leaf of a tree is different, but recognizably a leaf).
monkeymule -- OR are you aware of this trait of Chaos, and speaking of the literal border between chaos & order, like the border of the Mandelbrot Set, between the points that fly off to infinity and those that don't, where the beautiful fractals are? Is that what you mean?
At any rate, I disagree with the end of your sentence "[..] if it fell on the other side of the structure it would become meaningless because of its permanence."
It is precisely the DETERMINISM that creates the interesting patterns in our universe. Indeterminism is entropy & decay. Of course both of these are traits of our universe.
Well, that's the question isn't it. Does Determinism really creates the interesting patterns in our universe?
Here is my thinking on the matter:
A simple pattern, a tessellation, on some level is a direct manifestation of the rule that created it.
Fractals, trees, complex systems are not interesting because of what repeats, but interesting because of what does not repeat. As you zoom into a fractal (I am an amateur fractal artist) you will find that each region of the Mandelbrot's edge..
has its own distinct characteristics, some parts are stringy, some parts are orby, some segments become more complex, and some parts become less complex.
Because the pattern imperfectly replicated, the more you process the original formula the more information you are going to create.
The question is where does this information come from? Is it locked away, folded inside the formula?
No. That's the beauty of it, the expression of the rule is greater than the rule itself.
It's not a memoir, other than organizing my thoughts on paper. It's just non-fiction, really. I'm aiming for the average joe (so to speak) on the street.
OK, I see this in your language (I have CH1 in front of me).
Though I may not be "avg Joe", I will add my two cents:
I am quickly turned off by "WE" language because I am learning about the author's perspective, and, if I have not already agreed with you, then it makes no sense to use "we". I request you eliminate the "we" language or define "we" in the beginning, i.e., those whose consent you've acquired.
I reference:
Google: collectivism in language, on "selfsip" site
That is surely good advice. :) Although if I replace WE with PEOPLE, it seems just as collective. I'm not sure how else to say, "When WE mix and mingle.. " other than "when PEOPLE mix and mingle.." I'm just making statements about what I think. Hmm, I don't have the patience right now to watch this whole segment now, but I think I say "determinists" and "free willers" more than "we" on opinion based matters. ??
By the way, in this talk I started in the middle of a longer chapter.
"We" in response to who is observing is a correct reference especially when relating to (pardon the reference) oneself. The brain is a collective of peripherals which can function as an individual entity if they are isolated. But to function in this reality it is required that they act as one which we interpret as self yet they must preform the function to which evolved within the frame work or dysfunction in some area will result. Our self-perception a byproduct of this synchronization.
Nodalthree 2 years ago
I am a bit confused now. You will be hard pressed to find a "free-willer" that denies that predictions can be made, even regarding the actions of individuals. After all, free will is just one cause among many. For example, one might predictably wish for a cheeseburger but also freely wish that they did not wish for a cheeseburger.
If you are willing to concede that predictions, and not determinations, are made about the future it seems to me free will has plenty of space to rest it's head.
monkeymule 2 years ago
Of course predictions can be made. How else would we perform scientific studies? On one level our brains use prediction as a major tool to function throughout the day. We subconsciously predict as we take each step across the room that the floor will remain in tact, that our legs will not fall off, etc. (see On Intelligence.) We use our memories of past experiences to draw conclusions and predict the future. But to "predict" ONLY refers to something living things do with our limited resources.
miselaineeous 2 years ago
The universe does not "predict". It just determines (and indetermines. lol.)
What do you think "free will" is?
miselaineeous 2 years ago
I have an sort of unusual view on this.
I think free will is simply the source of all un-caused happenings. This is a view I have constructed from alot of thought about physics and philosophy, notably of Robert Pirsig, but also other philosophizers. To me Robert Pirsig is a giant in this area, I highly recommend his writing.
Ultimately the implication of this view is that free will is the primary engine of time, and the universe as we know it is the moral history of free choices.
monkeymule 2 years ago
You expressed the fear that free will might be a manifestation of random quantum chaos. I certainly would not want my free will to be random either.
Free will cannot be random because it can only exist on the borderline between chaos and order. If free will fell off the line to either side, on one side the universe would be meaningless because it would be devoid of any structure (chaos), and if it fell of on the other side the structure would become meaningless because of its permanence.
monkeymule 2 years ago
I want to provide a though experiment to illustrate this idea, but I was unable to articulate it properly in the time I have right now, so I will post it tomorrow.
monkeymule 2 years ago
monkeymule -- One of my biggest pet peeves is the misuse of the word "chaos" in a situation like this, where it isn't clear whether you're referring to indeterminism, or the entirely deterministic discipline of Chaos Mathematics (Chaos Theory). In Chaos Theory, even the most chaotic of systems contains patterns that repeat - if not exactly the same each time - in recognizable variations (like how each leaf of a tree is different, but recognizably a leaf).
miselaineeous 2 years ago
monkeymule -- OR are you aware of this trait of Chaos, and speaking of the literal border between chaos & order, like the border of the Mandelbrot Set, between the points that fly off to infinity and those that don't, where the beautiful fractals are? Is that what you mean?
miselaineeous 2 years ago
At any rate, I disagree with the end of your sentence "[..] if it fell on the other side of the structure it would become meaningless because of its permanence."
It is precisely the DETERMINISM that creates the interesting patterns in our universe. Indeterminism is entropy & decay. Of course both of these are traits of our universe.
miselaineeous 2 years ago
Well, that's the question isn't it. Does Determinism really creates the interesting patterns in our universe?
Here is my thinking on the matter:
A simple pattern, a tessellation, on some level is a direct manifestation of the rule that created it.
Fractals, trees, complex systems are not interesting because of what repeats, but interesting because of what does not repeat. As you zoom into a fractal (I am an amateur fractal artist) you will find that each region of the Mandelbrot's edge..
monkeymule 2 years ago
has its own distinct characteristics, some parts are stringy, some parts are orby, some segments become more complex, and some parts become less complex.
Because the pattern imperfectly replicated, the more you process the original formula the more information you are going to create.
The question is where does this information come from? Is it locked away, folded inside the formula?
No. That's the beauty of it, the expression of the rule is greater than the rule itself.
monkeymule 2 years ago
Is this book a memoir?
If not, for what voice are you aiming?
Olehenry1 2 years ago
It's not a memoir, other than organizing my thoughts on paper. It's just non-fiction, really. I'm aiming for the average joe (so to speak) on the street.
miselaineeous 2 years ago
OK, I see this in your language (I have CH1 in front of me).
Though I may not be "avg Joe", I will add my two cents:
I am quickly turned off by "WE" language because I am learning about the author's perspective, and, if I have not already agreed with you, then it makes no sense to use "we". I request you eliminate the "we" language or define "we" in the beginning, i.e., those whose consent you've acquired.
I reference:
Google: collectivism in language, on "selfsip" site
Best,
Olehenry1 2 years ago
That is surely good advice. :) Although if I replace WE with PEOPLE, it seems just as collective. I'm not sure how else to say, "When WE mix and mingle.. " other than "when PEOPLE mix and mingle.." I'm just making statements about what I think. Hmm, I don't have the patience right now to watch this whole segment now, but I think I say "determinists" and "free willers" more than "we" on opinion based matters. ??
By the way, in this talk I started in the middle of a longer chapter.
miselaineeous 2 years ago