Free-Will

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

But, you are saying that your personal bias, or coloured vision is determined by something else, which is correct. If our will was not dependent on other factors, then all of our wills should be the same. I hope you aren't proposing that the will of a neonate is the same as an adult. We have studied child cognitive development and it is solely dependent on environmental and biological factors, it is the basis of psychological treatment. If will was as subjective and variant as is proposed by classical thought, then we could never treat psychological disorder. The truth is since the beginning of science, we have known that our fate is predetermined, but it's been denied by the existence of belief systems contradictory to it. Heissenberg's uncertainty principle has given fuel to indeterminism, but physicists know what is wrong with the uncertainty principle, which I mentioned, uncertainty is still order and Schrödinger proved Heissenberg was observing incorrectly.

The entire universe is dependent on order, from the atom (Quantum Mechanics) to the atmosphere, no matter how chaotic or uncertain it seems.

I'm saying predetermination is entirely real. What I'm ALSO saying is that when we begin to open to the other aspects of perception that we've been ignoring, when we begin to integrate other types of intelligence, and evolve to higher levels of personal awareness, the predetermination is acknowledged as part of a very spectacular full picture, all occurring right now, where the past and the future ONLY exist in theory. Within that context, predetermination looks very, very different!

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm saying predetermination is entirely real. What I'm ALSO saying is that when we begin to open to the other aspects of perception that we've been ignoring, when we begin to integrate other types of intelligence, and evolve to higher levels of personal awareness, the predetermination is acknowledged as part of a very spectacular full picture, all occurring right now, where the past and the future ONLY exist in theory. Within that context, predetermination looks very, very different!

I see, but it's still determinism. You have the spans of consciousness or awareness that you do because of information you've processed, books that you've read, or experiences you've had and because of that, your awareness is determined.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I see, but it's still determinism. You have the spans of consciousness or awareness that you do because of information you've processed, books that you've read, or experiences you've had and because of that, your awareness is determined.

It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond determinism. When we realize we only exist in the moment, we recognize there is not cause and there is not effect. I don't expect people looking at the cause and effect level to understand beyond the cause and effect level, though.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond determinism. When we realize we only exist in the moment, we recognize there is not cause and there is not effect. I don't expect people looking at the cause and effect level to understand beyond the cause and effect level, though.

Causality is the basis of reality. How it goes beyond determinism is foreign to the greatest of minds. If you have some insight, then that is insight not provided to these other minds, and that determines the difference.

In any case, when we have variation their is another influence. Will is variant, consciousness is variant, morality is variant. They are all deterministic - chaotic mechanisms.

Ahnimus

Also, if you are going beyond determinism, or beyond causality, it's what Einstein called Übercausalität, German for Supercausality. But... it's still causality and still determinism.

Ahnimus

Supercausality

In special relativity the energy-momentum relation, which relates the energy of an object (E) with its momentum (p), and mass (m), where c is the speed of light: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, has a dual energy solution:

±E = \sqrt{p^2c^2+m^2c^4}

one positive + E, which moves forward in time (causality), and one negative − E, which moves backward in time (retrocausality).

This equation describes events as the result of causes which propagate from the past to the future (causality) and causes which propagate backwards in time from the future to the past (retrocausality)/attractors. Einstein used the term Übercausalität (supercausality) to refer to this new model of dual causation.

Ahnimus

Here is another one:

Nature or Nurture, they are both causes.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Supercausality

In special relativity the energy-momentum relation, which relates the energy of an object (E) with its momentum (p), and mass (m), where c is the speed of light: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, has a dual energy solution:

±E = \sqrt{p^2c^2+m^2c^4}

one positive + E, which moves forward in time (causality), and one negative − E, which moves backward in time (retrocausality).

This equation describes events as the result of causes which propagate from the past to the future (causality) and causes which propagate backwards in time from the future to the past (retrocausality)/attractors. Einstein used the term Übercausalität (supercausality) to refer to this new model of dual causation.

http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/pdf/CKbrainpaper.pdf

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/pdf/CKbrainpaper.pdf

Yea, I'm aware of Chris King's bifurcation theory. Unfortunately it's false and that entire paper paves the road to determinism.

"To understand how the subjective aspect arises requires both a radical investigation down to the foundations of
physics and an understanding of how subjective awareness, as opposed to mere computational capacity, may
have become elaborated by Darwinian natural selection. We thus have to find reasons why subjectivity itself,
rather than computation alone, is of pivotal importance in organismic survival. The answer lies in its capacity
to anticipate situations crucial to survival. For this to be possible, the foundations of physics must contain a
principle of space-time anticipation not covered by any mechanism of computation alone, or subjectivity would
become superfluous and would have never been selected for in evolution. This paper sets out to demonstrate
how quantum transactions universal to all quantum phenomena my fulfil this pivotal role."

Yes, we must search for Causality Chris, because not everything is Causal, that is a direct contradiction of logic. No, the subjective mind is not a predictor, the objective computational mind is a predictor, that is the point.

His bifurcation theory isn't taking into account the true complexity of space/time. As Angelica said "living in the now" now only exists as a concept, becuase now now, was now two seconds ago, or 2 milliseconds ago, or 2 nanoseconds ago, now is never now in that it is now independent of the now 2 nanoseconds ago or the now 2 nanoseconds from now. Time exists as a whole and the measurement of time is a concept we created to measure it, the clock on the wall does not define time. Einstein's theory of relativity actually proves this and Chris King is looking at the clock and measuring time and trying to make sense of it, which he can not.

Ahnimus

Let's put it this way, if Chris King was right the universe would be in a constant frozen state and there would be no time.

angelica

If you are saying that everything that has happened had to happen because it did, and that everything that will happen will happen, and in essense it's "written" that way, then I'm with you 100%. We are fully synchronized with life.

Unconsciously, we each stem from Life, itself. We each unconsciously co-create each and every variable in our lives interactively with each and every other co-creator. You might think you are sitting at your computer and you happen to run across me here. Science/math can map that and the "odds" of it happening. And yet it's far more than that. Our consciousness has agreed to this interaction at a level far beyond what science can map. We are intending this interaction, either unconsciously, or unconsciously and consciously at the same time. There is intent and choice present, whether we know it or not. Once one begins to get this, then one can align with that unconscious consciousness, making it conscious. Then one can increase their ability to consciously affect people all around them whenever they want. And to create one's dreams. One realizes that usual social convention is an illusion, and therefore one can move beyond it. One recognizes fear mongering for what it is, and one is beyond it.

Charles Manson did not deliberately raise himself to be a "bad" person. And yet, unconsciously, he co-created each and every variable in his life. Our ego is the tip of the iceberg of our Self. What you might traditionally think of as yourself or as Charles Manson is a miniscule part of the true brilliance of who you or he is. In order to understand the truth, one moves beyond objective awareness, into the stellar inner space of subjective awareness. When one begins to expand one's consciousness to see what is really there, rather than only the limits of science, objectivity and what we've trained ourselves to see, when one melds subjectivity and objectivity, then one can begin bringing conscious awareness to this process that goes on anyway. There are essentially two options: we are unconscious of our free will, or we are conscious of our free will. Either way, we're 100% accountable for it in each moment of our existence.

Physical sciences cannot map the depths of life. It can only map the surfaces that are observed and it can analyze their relationships to one another.

Note: I agree the the traditional idea of free will is an illusion. To imagine we can just as easily choose one option over another and if we choose the "bad" one it's because we are bad. That's an illusion. I understand our choices are "determined". This is why numerous people find peace and wholeness when they find "God" or a connection with the underlying purposes that "drive" us.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I'm aware of Chris King's bifurcation theory. Unfortunately it's false and that entire paper paves the road to determinism.

"To understand how the subjective aspect arises requires both a radical investigation down to the foundations of
physics and an understanding of how subjective awareness, as opposed to mere computational capacity, may
have become elaborated by Darwinian natural selection. We thus have to find reasons why subjectivity itself,
rather than computation alone, is of pivotal importance in organismic survival. The answer lies in its capacity
to anticipate situations crucial to survival. For this to be possible, the foundations of physics must contain a
principle of space-time anticipation not covered by any mechanism of computation alone, or subjectivity would
become superfluous and would have never been selected for in evolution. This paper sets out to demonstrate
how quantum transactions universal to all quantum phenomena my fulfil this pivotal role."

Yes, we must search for Causality Chris, because not everything is Causal, that is a direct contradiction of logic. No, the subjective mind is not a predictor, the objective computational mind is a predictor, that is the point.

His bifurcation theory isn't taking into account the true complexity of space/time. As Angelica said "living in the now" now only exists as a concept, becuase now now, was now two seconds ago, or 2 milliseconds ago, or 2 nanoseconds ago, now is never now in that it is now independent of the now 2 nanoseconds ago or the now 2 nanoseconds from now. Time exists as a whole and the measurement of time is a concept we created to measure it, the clock on the wall does not define time. Einstein's theory of relativity actually proves this and Chris King is looking at the clock and measuring time and trying to make sense of it, which he can not.

You're seriously confused about both King and Einstein's theories. Both require time, and both require time as a dimensional construct. King is attempting to overcome any frozen-state paradox that arises from determination when examined from Einstein's conclusions. If, as you contend, determinism is simply causal, it would require complete linearity which collapses when both causality and retrocausailty exist. Furthermore, without time as a measurable concept, supercausality itself does not work.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

If you are saying that everything that has happened had to happen because it did, and that everything that will happen will happen, and in essense it's "written" that way, then I'm with you 100%. We are fully synchronized with life.

Unconsciously, we each stem from Life, itself. We each unconsciously co-create each and every variable in our lives interactively with each and every other co-creator. You might think you are sitting at your computer and you happen to run across me here. Science/math can map that and the "odds" of it happening. And yet it's far more than that. Our consciousness has agreed to this interaction at a level far beyond what science can map. We are intending this interaction, either unconsciously, or unconsciously and consciously at the same time. There is intent and choice present, whether we know it or not. Once one begins to get this, then one can align with that unconscious consciousness, making it conscious. Then one can increase their ability to consciously affect people all around them whenever they want. And to create one's dreams. One realizes that usual social convention is an illusion, and therefore one can move beyond it. One recognizes fear mongering for what it is, and one is beyond it.

Charles Manson did not deliberately raise himself to be a "bad" person. And yet, unconsciously, he co-created each and every variable in his life. Our ego is the tip of the iceberg of our Self. What you might traditionally think of as yourself or as Charles Manson is a miniscule part of the true brilliance of who you or he is. In order to understand the truth, one moves beyond objective awareness, into the stellar inner space of subjective awareness. When one begins to expand one's consciousness to see what is really there, rather than only the limits of science, objectivity and what we've trained ourselves to see, when one melds subjectivity and objectivity, then one can begin bringing conscious awareness to this process that goes on anyway. There are essentially two options: we are unconscious of our free will, or we are conscious of our free will. Either way, we're 100% accountable for it in each moment of our existence.

Physical sciences cannot map the depths of life. It can only map the surfaces that are observed and it can analyze their relationships to one another.

Note: I agree the the traditional idea of free will is an illusion. To imagine we can just as easily choose one option over another and if we choose the "bad" one it's because we are bad. That's an illusion. I understand our choices are "determined". This is why numerous people find peace and wholeness when they find "God" or a connection with the underlying purposes that "drive" us.

See, you are a compatibalist, we have the same ideas in principle, but you believe in a subjective free-will that I do not. Either way there is causality for that subjective free-will, of course Charles Manson did not choose to spend his life in jail, or to be living in a garbage bin at age 12.

I can give a personal example of dynamic causality. When I was 7 years old I was racing my brother home from school on our bikes, he was beating me and I cut the corner on our street, I was then hit by a truck. Who's fault is that? Ultimately wouldn't it be mine for cutting the corner? Why did I cut the corner? Because I was racing my brother and I wanted to beat him, because he's older and as a middle-child I felt out-done by my older brother. So, now I'm hit by a truck in which the driver had no way of preventing it, except he was speeding and not paying attention, he was doing that because a beautiful girl was walking on the side-walk. The event of him hitting me changed both of our perceptions of reality drastically. There is causality for the event and the event is causality for our perceptions. The CDS of consciousness is not that linear however, the event only impacts our thoughts, it doesn't solely dictate them, other reinforcers or suppressors to our personality have effect as well.

I do believe in consciousness, and I do believe it is important as a buffer between input and output, but I don't believe it plays a computational role. There is a split second between when we make a decision and have the thought, there is another split second between having the thought and carrying out the action. Consciousness is a buffer, but doesn't serve any computational purpose, only awareness.

To say that evolutionary natural selection would rule out consciousness if it didn't serve an evolutionary advantage is absurd. The whole point of evolution is that changes occur that are good and bad, natural selection would only rule-out consciousness if it was significantly detrimental to our survival, which it is not. Additionally the science of cognition and Cellular Automata predicts that a simple rule such as:

Current State = S
Neighbours = (,) 1/0
Future State = F

If S = 1 & (1,0,0) then F = 0
If S = 0 & (1,0,0) then F = 1
If S = 0 & (1,1,0) then F = 1

and so on (Not a real example), by using this computational Cellular Automaton we are able to simulate life, consciousness and free-will. Because a result of this Cellular Automaton is fragments of information that serve no computational or operation purposes congregating together in the form of consciousness.

You can download a program called CASim and if you can understand it you can test it out for yourself, a very simple set of rules has been used to create artificial ants that build a cemetary, using very simple mathematical rules. One particular Cellular Automaton called Rule 30 produces results that appear to be random, but are in-fact determined by the Rule. This Cellular Automaton Rule 30 is used for random number generation, because it's more effective then alternative deterministic random number generators, however, they are all still deterministic, they just have the illusion of being random.

You can view the ant example here http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/acri_ants.html

Fish swimming in an aquarium
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/Fische.html

Many more and software download here
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/#Overview

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

You're seriously confused about both King and Einstein's theories. Both require time, and both require time as a dimensional construct. King is attempting to overcome any frozen-state paradox that arises from determination when examined from Einstein's conclusions. If, as you contend, determinism is simply causal, it would require complete linearity which collapses when both causality and retrocausailty exist. Furthermore, without time as a measurable concept, supercausality itself does not work.

Causality is not always linear, it's causal in a chaotic system, such as the ripples in a pool of water, the effect the moon has on oceanic wave formation, the effect a butterfly has on tomorrow's weather, it's all causal but far more complex than being linear. Einstein basically said that now is not now independent of the past and the future. Just like there is nothing in the mind independent of what is outside of the mind.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

See, you are a compatibalist, we have the same ideas in principle, but you believe in a subjective free-will that I do not. Either way there is causality for that subjective free-will, of course Charles Manson did not choose to spend his life in jail, or to be living in a garbage bin at age 12.

I can give a personal example of dynamic causality. When I was 7 years old I was racing my brother home from school on our bikes, he was beating me and I cut the corner on our street, I was then hit by a truck. Who's fault is that? Ultimately wouldn't it be mine for cutting the corner? Why did I cut the corner? Because I was racing my brother and I wanted to beat him, because he's older and as a middle-child I felt out-done by my older brother. So, now I'm hit by a truck in which the driver had no way of preventing it, except he was speeding and not paying attention, he was doing that because a beautiful girl was walking on the side-walk. The event of him hitting me changed both of our perceptions of reality drastically. There is causality for the event and the event is causality for our perceptions. The CDS of consciousness is not that linear however, the event only impacts our thoughts, it doesn't solely dictate them, other reinforcers or suppressors to our personality have effect as well.

I do believe in consciousness, and I do believe it is important as a buffer between input and output, but I don't believe it plays a computational role. There is a split second between when we make a decision and have the thought, there is another split second between having the thought and carrying out the action. Consciousness is a buffer, but doesn't serve any computational purpose, only awareness.

To say that evolutionary natural selection would rule out consciousness if it didn't serve an evolutionary advantage is absurd. The whole point of evolution is that changes occur that are good and bad, natural selection would only rule-out consciousness if it was significantly detrimental to our survival, which it is not. Additionally the science of cognition and Cellular Automata predicts that a simple rule such as:

Current State = S
Neighbours = (,) 1/0
Future State = F

If S = 1 & (1,0,0) then F = 0
If S = 0 & (1,0,0) then F = 1
If S = 0 & (1,1,0) then F = 1

and so on (Not a real example), by using this computational Cellular Automaton we are able to simulate life, consciousness and free-will. Because a result of this Cellular Automaton is fragments of information that serve no computational or operation purposes congregating together in the form of consciousness.

You can download a program called CASim and if you can understand it you can test it out for yourself, a very simple set of rules has been used to create artificial ants that build a cemetary, using very simple mathematical rules. One particular Cellular Automaton called Rule 30 produces results that appear to be random, but are in-fact determined by the Rule. This Cellular Automaton Rule 30 is used for random number generation, because it's more effective then alternative deterministic random number generators, however, they are all still deterministic, they just have the illusion of being random.

You can view the ant example here http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/acri_ants.html

Fish swimming in an aquarium
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/Fische.html

Many more and software download here
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/#Overview

It looks like you don't have a lot of insights into your sub or superconscious. It's unfortunate, considering the bulk of you resides there. As we get to know the superconscious level, we come to understand the purposes and meaning to our agreements beyond space-time--our contracts that we commit to and cause incidents like your accident. Science cannot give you such depths of life--it can only map the shallow surfaces. Only insight is insight.

I've had moments of consciousness, where I've seen the exact overviews and each relationship in my life in it's perfection, in different contexts. For example, I've been "shown" WHY I developed numerous disorders and the over-riding purpose for me to have gone through that in this lifetime, including where I am heading with that. I only have to walk the path.

Just like 12 years ago, I was shown why I had OCD, and I was shown how I would heal. And I was shown I would heal. And after seeing all that, I followed my gut feelings in every situation of my life, knowing I was guided. And I happened to find the exact perfect source here or there that healed me of some major mental illnesses and addictions, within 8 or so years. This intelligence within and beyond myself was/is very real.

EDIT: In our subjective awareness, EVERYTHING revolves around us. We are not a cog. We are God. We intend it ALL. We create everything that we see and we sustain everything. Science cannot assess value, so therefore science cannot answer the "why's". And science cannot appreciate the meaning. It can only map surfaces and their relationships.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It looks like you don't have a lot of insights into your sub or superconscious. It's unfortunate, considering the bulk of you resides there. As we get to know the superconscious level, we come to understand the purposes and meaning to our agreements beyond space-time--our contracts that we commit to and cause incidents like your accident. Science cannot give you such depths of life--it can only map the shallow surfaces. Only insight is insight.

I've had moments of consciousness, where I've seen the exact overviews and each relationship in my life in it's perfection, in different contexts. For example, I've been "shown" WHY I developed numerous disorders and the over-riding purpose for me to have gone through that in this lifetime, including where I am heading with that. I only have to walk the path.

Just like 12 years ago, I was shown why I had OCD, and I was shown how I would heal. And I was shown I would heal. And after seeing all that, I followed my gut feelings in every situation of my life, knowing I was guided. And I happened to find the exact perfect source here or there that healed me of some major mental illnesses and addictions, within 8 or so years. This intelligence within and beyond myself was/is very real.

Yes, after discovering the causality of your OCD you were able to overcome it, but not before hand, because your will to do so was determined by your understanding of the disorder.

Also, insight or intuition are determined by the frontal insular cortex of the brain.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yes, after discovering the causality of your OCD you were able to overcome it, but not before hand, because your will to do so was determined by your understanding of the disorder.

Also, insight or intuition are determined by the frontal insular cortex of the brain.

You cannot assess the meaning of anything if you are using science alone.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You cannot assess the meaning of anything if you are using science alone.

haha, the only alternative is guessing

Sorry, I'll go with 2 + 2 = 4 based on science, isntead of 2 + 2 = 22 based on a guess.

Ahnimus

What's ironic about this, really, is that a year ago I had this same conversation with a computational cognitive scientist and a biologist, and I used all the same arguements you guys are, but in the end I was wrong.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

haha, the only alternative is guessing

Sorry, I'll go with 2 + 2 = 4 based on science, isntead of 2 + 2 = 22 based on a guess.

Subjective levels of value exist. Which is why I don't often get proven wrong in a debate. Truth is truth. And when one subjective truth trumps another that is a fact. It's clear to those witnessing it. The "guessing" thing is pure illusion. The fact that you use an objective question to show your (lack of) understanding of subjective truth shows just how crippled that function is for you. That's the problem of science: the surface mapping of the physical realm has turned into scientism by overtaking and monopolizing realms that science and objective mapping cannot assess. So people walk around oblivious to what they cannot "see" even when they interact with it regularly in each day. It's because they don't know how to awaken to the framework. Therefore it remains unconscious. But right before your eyes.