Biological Creativity

TELL ME ALL ABOUT YOUR FREE WILL

Quite apart from a Universe which might well be deterministic and clockwork-like in its make-up, or even a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe where you are software, and software rules, (OK?) your free will is limited at best or perhaps lacking in substance entirely. The Universe is the way it is and no amount of wishful (free will) thinking is going to change that.

ORIGINS - No Free Will

You had absolutely no say in your origins. You had no say in what species you became; no say in what your sex was; no say in what time or era you were hatched into; no say in what place either; no say in your genetics; your parents; your race; your family ancestry, even your here and now family. If you had that free will, I'm sure you would have changed in hindsight one or more parameters of your origins.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT - No Free Will

You can't un-burn your bridges by travelling back in time.

Six Impossible Things (no free will can change): You can't travel south of the South Pole; you can't calculate Pi to the last decimal place; you can't make a spherical cube (or cubical sphere); you can't divide by zero; you can't draw more than one straight line connecting two dots on a flat piece of paper; you can't be in two places at the same time.

You can't travel faster than the speed of light.

If Mother Nature is in a bitchy mood, you're not going to change it. All you can do is duck and cover (and maybe pray).

BODY - Its Body Over Mind, Not Mind Over Body.

You can't stop of your own free will the ageing process. You can't fight entropy and win in the long term.

You can't cheat death (and probably not even taxes in the long term).

You can't stop catching various diseases.

You can't negate the physiological effects of food, illegal drugs, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, poisons, lack of oxygen, etc.

MIND: THE INVOLUNTARY AUTOMATED NERVOUS SYSTEM

You can', in the long term, of your own free will; negate the need for sleep, breathing, an intake of an energy supply (food) and liquid intake, the elimination of solid, liquid and gaseous waste products.

You have no control over the chemical processes that govern your physiology like digestion, respiration, etc.

You can't control to any great and lasting extent via free will your blood pressure or heart beat.

You naturally fall asleep but you can't will yourself to fall asleep.

When you sleep your body (normally) goes into shut-down mode to prevent you from sleepwalking. You probably cannot free will yourself to walk in your sleep (nor would you want to).

MIND: SUBCONSCIOUS

You apparently have no control over your dreams or nightmares. You are just a passive observer within the passing dream parade and you have no free will about the content or context of that dream parade. So what you dream is beyond your conscious control whether you like it or not (but at least the price of admission is free).

MIND: CONSCIOUSNESS

Okay, let's say for a moment you have conscious free will (though see immediately below). There are still some flies in the ointment. Firstly, you don't have infinite free will since at no time are you ever faced with an infinite number of choices. Your free will choices are often limited to either this or that. Okay, that's free will but perhaps not as free in terms of options as you may like. Secondly, you believe you have free will so you reject determinism. You don't want something or someone determining what you should or shouldn't do. Yet, I'd wager dimes to doughnuts that this is a case of do as I say not as I do. You often wish to impose your determinism on others. You may not say so; you may not actually put in train that which will determine the decision-making of others; but you will damn well think it (and maybe mutter under your breath). You want things to happen; you want people to do, what you want to happen and what you want other people to do. Good luck with that!

Then there are those bits of false 'reality', realities which you know aren't really real, as in optical illusions, where your mind is playing tricks on you and you are aware of that albeit helpless to dispel the illusion. All the free will you can muster won't alter what your mind is telling you even when you know your mind is lying to you!

You would tell me that you have free will to lift your leg up, or not. But if you are paralysed from the waist down, that free will is irrelevant and immaterial.

You have no conscious free will control over the exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide when you breathe in and out. The same applies as noted above to the various chemical (blood, liver, or digestive) and biological (cell reproduction) processes that are part of your reality but which you only have theoretical (book learning) awareness of.

So, mind over matter, or free will over matter, cannot be taken seriously

CASE HISTORY

Despite the above, you probably believe you have free will. What you are actually thinking or saying is that you believe your brain has free will since you are your brain. Your brain is what makes you, you. Or, in other words, your brain believes your brain has free will. But your brain is just an interconnected lump, with the consistence of soft butter in a vat of salty water, of neurons, synapses, all firing thither and yon due to neurochemistry and biochemistry. And of course chemistry is just molecules and atoms and therefore electrons, neutrons and protons doing their electron, neutron and proton thing. So how is free will an emergent property of physics and chemistry?

Say you make a decision and then direct your brain to set in train whatever it takes to make that decision so, which is to say your brain decides to do something and then directs itself to make it so. There's something odd about that notion. Your heart doesn't decide to have a heart attack and then proceed to implement that decision.

Say you, or rather your brain, decides to cross the road, and puts in motion what's needed for you to cross the road and so you start to cross the road. You would tell me that you decided to cross the road of your own free will. As you are crossing the road a runaway car heads right at you and so you decide to leap out of the way. But did you really consciously decide, of your own free will to leap out of the way, or did you just do it without any hemming and hawing and pondering whether or not to leap out of the way. You would probably tell me you had no choice in the matter, you just leapt out of the way, yet you (or your brain) still had a choice and still made a decision.

So what is the difference in principle between your decision to cross the street and your decision to leap out of the way of the runaway car? I maintain there isn't any and thus your initial decision to cross the road was predetermined, by your subconscious if nothing else even before you became aware that you had apparently made a free will conscious decision.

Actually it has been experimentally verified that decision-making stems from the subconscious and not the conscious mind. Your perception that at least some of your decision-making is made consciously is an illusion. Therefore, there's no such thing as conscious free will (which makes perfect sense if we live in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe).

SOCIETY

You can't fight city hall. Even if you have some degree of conscious free will, society takes some of that away from you - you can't just do whatever you damn well please (unless of course part of that free will is accepting the consequences).

CONCLUSION

Now tell me all about your free will.

More likely to cheat if told there is no free will:Association for psychological science

Of course there are many things we can not change -

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference."

Reinhold Niebuhr

Adopted by Alcoholics anonymous and other groups.

What if we were to test your hypothesis: telling one group of alcoholics they have no free will and giving the other group the Serenity Prayer- and see which group succeed in having the most abstainers.

Re. my freewill. I can wake myself from sleep deliberately. When a dream becomes too unpleasant I tell myself to scream as loudly as possible in order to wake up, and knowing that will be the outcome.

Daniel Kahneman has written about thinking fast and slow.Public Lecture by Prof. Daniel Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow Thinking fast just gives us time to devote to important decisions that require deliberation. We would be overburdened if we had to deliberate every tiny decision the body makes. That does not mean we have no free will but that we have the opportunity to exercise it, if we choose, when it is important or useful to use it.

I chose to reply to your post, because of the subject and its importance to me.

groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/nQYLO4BbK6o/3xgwYLqdyhgJ

:Happy Easter Dressings#topic/617

~w~

It certainly is true that there are things that we cannot change in the world and therefore must accept. Then there are things that we can change and do change as well as things we can change and choose not to change. Okay.

Free will then simply comes down to determinism. Do we live in a deterministic universe or a probablistic universe? If the universe is deterministic, then initial conditions determine all fate and karma. If the universe is probablistic, then initial conditions result in a universe that is mostly but not absolutely predictable. There is karma, but also free choice.

Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works.

Although many choices that we make in life are fairly predictable, there are many choices that we make that surprise even ourselves when we make them. We are responsible for our choices even when we do not completely understand why we chose what we chose and there is nothing else to call this but free choice. We are of course responsible for our bad choices even though we know when they are bad.

Steve Agnew,

Could you please explain why your "probablistic" universe gives rise to intelligent choice? A universe that is mechanically "not absolutely predictable" is not descriptive of properties of intelligence nor involved with intelligent choice. Perhaps you know how it is?

"If the universe is probablistic, then initial conditions result in a universe that is mostly but not absolutely predictable. There is karma, but also free choice."

James Putnam

Ah, but now you have changed the rules...now you want intelligent choice, not just free choice. Intelligent choice is all about reason and is a much different apple, but there are intelligent free choices...

If you make a bet based on 50:50 odds as an intelligent choice, where is your bet? This is free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, a probablistic universe will result in a probablistic future no matter what the intelligence. Otherwise, intelligent choices are usually pretty easy to predict...given the same intelligence at work...of course, there are always outlyers, right?

You see, it is not mysterious when people act rationally in their own interests and these choices are usually predictable. But when people act in ways that are difficult to rationalize, which includes zealotry and mental illness, but also creativity and imagining about impossible things and then making them possible. To me, that is the magic elixar of free choice and free will.

Steve Agnew,

"Ah, but now you have changed the rules...now you want intelligent choice, not just free choice."

I haven't changed any rules. Your complete message:

Free will then simply comes down to determinism. Do we live in a deterministic universe or a probablistic universe? If the universe is deterministic, then initial conditions determine all fate and karma. If the universe is probablistic, then initial conditions result in a universe that is mostly but not absolutely predictable. There is karma, but also free choice.

Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works.

Although many choices that we make in life are fairly predictable, there are many choices that we make that surprise even ourselves when we make them. We are responsible for our choices even when we do not completely understand why we chose what we chose and there is nothing else to call this but free choice. We are of course responsible for our bad choices even though we know when they are bad.

What is your paragraph saying about free will? Are you explaining the origin of free will? If so, how does what you call free choice become free will?

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

I did read your followup message. I didn't respond to it because the meanings of your words needed clarification for me. If you wish to cut this short, please let me know if human free will is an intelligent act? If it is, what does mechanics have to do with explaining an intelligent act. If it is, for you, not an intelligent act and results from unintelligent mechanical activity, then I am requesting the steps that lead from an unintelligent cause to an intelligent result? That cause you may identify. The result in question being human free will.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

That wasn't as clear as I intended it to be. I am declaring human free will to be an intelligent act. Are you declaring it to be a mechanical effect and not an intelligent act. Thank you.

James Putnam

Now we are engaged...is free will an intelligent act or is free will a mechanical act? I am surprised that you are still engaged since usually I am thrown out of the bar by now...

Notice that we have moved the free will/free choice argument down the field a little bit further than is typical. Now we are differentiating between an intelligent act, which certainly does not include creativity, and a mechanical act, which is like a machine programmed to make an object, but evidently now also includes all creative action as well.

I am afraid that you have left me to choose neither...but just 50% of the time! The really nice thing about free will is that it is very flexible in a quantum universe. No matter what you do, in a quantum and probablistic universe, the future is never completely certain and that means that both intelligence and mechanics have roles in determining the future.

Suffice it to say that mainstream science is a universe that is mostly empty space with a few objects here and there. The universe of matter time is full of the possibililties of the future with very few empty moments of time. Is your universe full of possibilities or of empty space?

Look...people have been arguing about free will for several millennia and I daresay that those arguments will likely continue in spite of what I or you say. What I do know is that the future it not certain and yet we do have a role in determining that uncertain future. Is that intelligence or is that mechanics?

Free will is really neither intelligence nor mechanics. Although we like to think that all of our choices are rational, it does not take much analysis to show that is certainly not true. It is likewise easy to show that our choices are also not just random chance. Free will is simply not either intelligence and mechanics, rather free will is due to the feelings of our primitive mind. While our rational mind and reason has much to do with choice, it is really by the feelings of our primitive mind that we make choices. The feelings of our primitive minds are what give us free choice and free will, not rational logic.

So it is with both the intelligence of reason as well as the mechanics of belief that we choose a desirable future.

Thanks for the link to your essay. You are very close to my understanding, but of course with different words and terms. Your innate is my primitive mind and your intelligent mind is my aware matter.

I agree that photons do carry a lot of information, but sound, touch, taste and smell also carry information as various forms of matter exchange. Furthermore, photons are what we share with objects along with other matter and are what binds objects and the universe together.

The synapses of neural communication pair up as particles of information that I call aware matter. Aware matter assembles into neural packets that we call thoughts, but intelligence is always a combination of both conscious and unconscious thought.

My understanding of dumbness is that it is an essential part of intelligence. Our intelligence as humans is to me just a more complex form of the same intelligence of other life. So I do not find intelligence that useful of a differentiator. The biggest differentiator for humans seems to be our ability to imagine clearly impossible futures...and yet still survive. We also somehow keep from spending our lives in futile quests and manage to procreate and thrive.

Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference

Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology belong to the latter.

Why is the universe is even understandable? This itself is hard to understand according to Einstein. I propose a line of reasoning here. Simplicity is a result of long term evolution in a close system. The resulting equilibrium gives rise to simplicity. The infinite possibilities of any member of the system have been largely reduced to a highly confined options. Most of the possibilities are prohibited due to forces that have long been cancelled out during the long evolution. Because of this simplicity, there appears to be causal effect. In other words, causal effect is a direct product of simplicity. Take our universe as an example, the universe is in equilibrium by and large. Only a handful forces remain. Because there are relatively few forces and laws, the universe appears to be orderly and thereby allows mathematics to even exist and work. Mathematics owes its existence to the equilibrium of the universe. Equilibrium brings orderliness and slowness to change. Just imagine, if one puts one stone by another stone, and because the stones decay so fast, by the end of this action of moving them together, one counts zero stone. The law of addition will be forever different from what we know today. In this sense, math and physics have 'this worldliness' feature, and is a localized knowledge to this universe at this phase of equilibrium. It could be vastly different in other possible states of the universe or other universes.

One notable exception to the simplicity in universe is the complexity in bio-sphere. Because the bio-sphere is inherently expansive and interactive, we cannot reduce the theories to a few laws and mathematics models. The bio-sphere is NOT an equilibrium system. Therefore it is very hard to apply causal effect to explain human society for instance. It is very hard to generalize theories or apply mathematics in bio-sphere or human society, as we are able to in cosmology.

Humans' brain is wired to understand simple things and not complex things. We seek patterns and generalize. This skill helps tremendously in our evolutionary past. For instance, our eyes are adept in figuring out linear movement. Our eyes are especially good at spotting moving object in a static background. The predisposition to seek simplicity gave humans survival advantage in its evolutionary history. We appreciate simplicity over complexity. Humans process limited computational power. It is most efficient to apply the limited resource to a fast algorithm. The design principal of the fast algorithm is simplicity. There is an aesthetic side of simplicity, whether it is a new physics theory or a design of a gadget. The propensity of seeking simplicity is a very human specific trait, and has nothing to do with the reality whether the world is simple or complex.

The coincidence of the simplicity of the universe and human's preference of simplicity is fortunate and fruitful. Specifically in the math and physics the coincidence yielded amazing results. There is no reason to doubt that more amazing discoveries will surface in the future. However, a grain of salt must be added so that we are conscious that there is less mysterious processes or agent involved in the coincidence. This article hopefully explained why.

However, the simplicity on the surface for the natural world might be just a disguise of a chaotic and unpredictable reality. The equilibrium masks over much of the chaos and most noises or complex nuisances cancel each other out. What's left is the poetic simplicity skin. Underneath the skin, things might not be that smooth, or elegant or simple after all. It is a possibility. We probably are able to see some hints as we get more refined data, better models and more powerful observation tools.

rujing_tang at yahoo com

Another aspect of the simplicity is that it indicates the death process of the universe toward infinite entropy. Based on the second law of thermal dynamics, our universe is slipping into this final death of maximum entropy. An accompanying result of this process is that the universe becomes simpler and simpler. Imagine a universe where homogeneity rules and any imaginable infinitesimal particles and forces are distributed absolutely uniformly and cannot be changed a bit. This would be the simplest state and requires the simplest mathematics or physics. If we are slipping in that direction, which I think we are, then we should not be surprised that the physics laws in describing the universe is becoming simpler. Our current simplistic physical forces and laws are hinting that.

Hello,

The evolution is a priciple of adaption and encodings.There is 2 principal concept, the darwinism and the lammarckism.In a very simple resume Darmin is about the naturalselection and Lamarck about the will. I prefer personnally Lamarck.But in fact these 2 theories are not sufficient for the encodings in dna.The cosmological informations,bosonic and even gravitonic)are essential.Fermions so encode informations with a lot of parameters,with sortings and superimposings.

Lamarck for example thought that if the giraffe had a long neck, it is because its will has encoded it,Darwin on the other side thought that it is just an adaptation due to a selective environmental adatation.But in fact the main important is to see theevolution since the first cells .

Hope that helps

Regards

Here is a simple resume of general evolution

Quantum sphères........H...CNO.....H2O NH4 CO2 H2C2 ......proteins hormons vitamins glucids lipids protids amino acids.....UNICELLS.PROTISTS.....PLURICELLS.....in millions of years they build

algonkian eozoic 550 millions cambrian 500 silurian //500 and 400 devonian 350 carboniferian(very incredible) permian 250 Trias Jurassic cretacea /135 AND 65 after tert and quat .....The evolution is pure road of adaptation and complexification.

Hope that helps

Regards

Announcing the introduction of the first Periodic Table for the Human Forebrain; which enjoys similar advantages to the dramatic influence the Periodic Table of the Elements has enjoyed with respect to Chemistry/Physics. The cerebral cortex represents the most logical initiation point for such an innovation, celebrated as the crowning culmination of human forebrain evolution. This radical expansion of the neocortex is observed to occur in a discrete pattern suggestively termed cortical growth rings. The stepwise repetition of these processes over the course of mammalian evolution ultimately accounts for the six sequential age levels of cortical evolution.

The two fundamental variables defining forebrain evolution are the parameters of phylogenetic age and input specificity. Sanides (1972) proposed that the human cortex evolved as a sequence of five concentric growth rings comprising a medio-lateral hemisphere gradient. Furthermore, the interoceptive, exteroceptive and proprioceptive input categories each project to their own four-part complex of cortical bands that (when taken collectively) define an antero-posterior hemisphere gradient. The para-coronal variable of phylogenetic age is plotted as the ordinate and the para-sagittal parameter of input specificity charted as the abscissa in a Cartesian coordinate system. Each cortical area described by Brodmann and von Economo corresponds to schematically unique age/input parameter coordinates. Furthermore, each affiliated thalamic nucleus of specific age and input coordinates projects principally to that cortical area comprising identical pair-coordinate values, implying that the evolution of both the dorsal thalamus and the cortex are similarly defined in terms of the specifics for the dual parameter grid.

More at forebrain.org

Hello Mr Lamuth,

Thanks for sharing your ideas about our brains and this evolutionI am fascinated also by evolution and complexification of mass.Our brains are fascinating resulsts of evolution, a big puzzle of encodings.You knw it is in classing the brains that I found this universal link of spherisation.I have seen since the selacians that our telencephal, our terminal brain are in spherisation, see afterr the fishs after the reptilains,the inferior mammalians and the Superior mammalians ....after the hominids.See the metencephals also.It is fascinating in fact our evolution.I have sent you an invitation on LinkedIn, I am facinated by evolution and biology.I am going to learn more about your works about brains, it is very relevant.Best Regards

Hi Steve

Forebrain expansion conforms to the roundness of the cranium.Not sure of an overlap of our approaches but sounds interesting ! ^_^

Best John