Hello Peter

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, the links (http://https//vimeo.com/195020202 and http://https//vimeo.com/196031419) don't work. Can you double check them? I'll be glad to look at them and maybe reply on your page.

It's hilarious -- after your nice rating I got another '1'. Imagine if trolls would apply their diligence to something positive!

James Arnold,

What I have stated about 'freewill' is related to science. What is 'freewill' based on science? To answer it, we have to consider the distinction between what we 'can do' and what we 'cannot do' (however much we wish). That is, there exits some restrictions; these restrictions are set by mathematical laws. Thus there is a 'set of allowed actions'. Freewill, based on science, is a mere selection from the 'set of actions allowed'. All living things and even some of our machines have freewill, the ability to select. This, of course, differs from the metaphysical view of freewill. I do agree that the domains of physics and metaphysics are different.

Jose P Koshy

I posted this reply to Peter on his thread, but am copying it here as it applies to the scientific critiques below as well:

Peter, yours is a brilliant and fascinating investigation of the physics of learning, and of its potential for improvement, but being rooted in science, it lacks an appreciation of the meta-physics of transcendence, negativity, and creativity (not to mention teleology).

I'll give brief examples, which seem so obvious and commonplace only because we possess these capabilities inherently: The concept of infinity cannot be learned, it cannot be defined (rendered finite), and yet we all have an intuitive (transcendent) grasp of what it means - we have a word for it! Negativity can involve a notion like "this situation is unacceptable, but an alternative can be imagined and may be possible." Creativity can involve the imagination of something that doesn't exist: The first hand-drawn representation of an animal, for example; we take representation for granted only because the original creative concept has been handed to us. (I go into these sorts of issues in more detail at http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/453 .)

This isn't to disparage the brilliance of your creativity, only to criticize your lack of self-appreciation!

Okay, how do you explain the selection of an option that no one has ever tried before? If instead of fight-or-flight when confronted by the leopard, I decide to hand it a piece of the banana slug I'm eating?

I'm adding here the more fully developed final sections and conclusion of the essay, which the contest length restriction did not allow:

An alternative ontology

For spontaneity to be recognized as a natural principle that both characterizes quantum behavior and induces consciousness, an alternative ontology must trace a coherent path between them.

If we share a fundamental spontaneity with the quantum, and possibly other natural bodies, one common feature that seems essential is what can be thought of as unity, or wholeness, or individuality - because a spontaneous multiplicity would have to involve a diversity of direction. The quantum is considered to be an individual; it is by definition the most basic individual entity. The atom and the biotic cell, and of course a neural entity all fit the definition of individuality as well. As an exploratory hypothesis, these might be the nodes, or levels, where individuality is consolidated.

We would also need to discover a connectedness between levels of individuality in order to establish a continuity from quantum to human. We've already seen that conglomerations of quanta seem to break the chain we're looking for: Sperry's wheel, a causal, deterministic object, constrains and nullifies the spontaneity of its constituents. But individuals at a given level can also combine as dynamic elements of structured, systematic aggregates - the biotic cells of a larger organism, for example. This could be the key to an ontological continuity: A conglomerate of spontaneous individuals will generally become mathematically predictable, and more strictly causal, the larger it is, but individuality at a new level can conceivably be created by the systemic, aggregate interactions of highly structured individuals at the already established level.

Consider this simple model: Spontaneous individuals generally interact in chaotic ways. Some become constrained in conditioned or chaotic conglomerates, some become elements of structured dynamic aggregates. Structured aggregates may evolve into more complex and organic systems, and in some cases establish a higher level of unity. This new level would constitute larger, more complex spontaneous individuals, as cells do of atoms, and as animals do of cells.53

From quanta to atoms to cells to (neural) animals, and all the aggregates that mediate and comprise them: This is the comprehensive, continuous ontological model that the concept of spontaneity can provide. It is a model of emergence, but it is an emergence of like-to-like, not object-to-subject. And it dissolves the distinction between mind and matter without reducing one to the other.

Causation and Intentionality

An important recognition afforded by the distinction between collectives (conglomerates and aggregates) and individuals - already mentioned abstractly in terms of the cue ball, but now framed in an ontology - is that causal effects are specifically characteristic of collectives. The behavior of individuals, being spontaneous, is to the extent that they are organized and effective (compare quanta to humans), intentional. And intentionality, although it can be causal in its effects, and can be influenced by systemic causes, is when highly developed, willful, and willfulness in-itself, is (because it is spontaneous) uncaused. Thus, in principle: Collectives are causal and produce effects; individuals are intentional, and have objectives.

The terms "intentional" and "willful" may seem anthropomorphic when applied to all levels of individuality, but not if we grant that they are exercised in prior levels only as effectively as their structures allow. Evidence of non-human spontaneity must be sought to be found, and already, inadvertently, Martin Heisenberg's research has indicated that "evidence of randomly generated [spontaneous!] behavior" can be seen even in unicellular organisms (i.e., biotic cells) and fruit flies.54

Emergence or Convergence?

The ontology sketched here may be considered coherent and at least somewhat plausible, and yet it has been framed in terms of emergence - not the magical objective-to-subjective sort, but still, there is a discontinuity: Even the transition from systemic individuals to a transcendent individual - from the firing of individual neurons to human consciousness, for example - is a leap.

I propose an additional aspect to this hypothetical ontology: that a more plausible explanation for what is conceived as emergence is convergence, not the constitution of wholes by elements, but the substantiation of elements by wholes.

It is recognized in quantum physics that space isn't empty, it is roiling with "virtual particles." Given the insoluble problem with the idea of emergence, it seems more plausible that spontaneity is ubiquitous, even if not embodied. If provided a viable structural framework, the universal spontaneity of Nature could converge, and become focused and dynamic, in individuality. When, for instance, Nature is instantiated in a brain, it becomes what we experience as consciousness and intentionality, with its highly developed capability for creativity and willfulness. Thus, by a natural convergence, neurons by their interaction wouldn't cause consciousness, they would enable it.

Even the transcendence involved in the instantiation of a new level of individuality needn't be considered abrupt, as it would be with an emergence of subjectivity from objectivity. We can see in the highly expressive aggregate spontaneity of human interactions abundant evidence of more-or-less transient convergences: In love, in culture - art, music, the sublimity of a choir, the eruption of applause - in collective prayer, in "national character", there is elementary, primordial individuation. Yes, it seems evident.

Conclusion

The present day culture of science isn't readily amenable to the non-deterministic notion of spontaneity being a fundamental principle, nor to the holistic idea of a universal nature that converges on structured systems to produce intentional, even willful individuals. But I submit that it provides a uniquely comprehensive explanation for consciousness and its natural place in our world. And ironically, however "metaphysical" it may seem to the disciplined scientific mind, it relieves science of the magical flights of theory that have been needed to account for human behavior.

The most immediate relief offered by the ontology of spontaneity is it allows our subjective experience, so incompatible with the dogma of determinism, the potential for full affirmation. It can also be liberating for materialists from the dogma of determinism, and the strain of denying our most intimate sense of self, consciousness, intentionality and willfulness.

James Arnold,

It does not depend on whether someone has tried it before or not. It only means whether it is possible or not. You may come up with an entirely new idea at that time; but if it is not allowed by mathematics, you will not be able to carry out your idea. For example, you cannot just vanish into thin air or just turn into a horrible dinosaur and scare the leopard.

Jose P Koshy

Well of course anything that happens must be possible.

You wrote "Freewill, based on science, is a mere selection from the 'set of actions allowed'."

There are an infinite number of selections that can be chosen in any situation that would be allowable. Give me any number of possible selections and I'll give you one more. Where consciousness differs from a mechanical device is the exercise of creativity and willfulness -- the refusal to be limited by any given set of selections.

James,

I like convergence rather than emergence and spontaneity rather than randomness. The coming together of nature and consciousness you describe seems more unifying. I just wonder about the "medium" example you give of space roiling with "virtual particles." In our atmospheric world, do our quantum components converge from an environment of space? Maybe we need an Einstein thought experiment.

My essay also speaks of the quantum meeting the macro but is perhaps less ethereal.

Hope you have a chance to check it out.

Jim Hoover

    Thank you for your comments, Jim

    The "convergence" concept was necessarily brief. I should have made it clear that the "Nature" that converges is everywhere, not just in "empty" space. I would like to elaborate on systematic aggregates as being more-or-less transient, amorphous, pre-individual convergences. Human aggregates, being combinations of highly advanced individuals, are illustrative: culture, a choir, even loving relationships bring an unconscious, amorphous Nature into being.

    I'll read your paper later today. Thanks again!

    James -

    An excellent essay, thanks. I'd be quite interested in discussing with you the contrast of spontaneity with intentionality - a key concept in my essay The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention. I would characterize spontaneity as the ability of an agent to make a choice that is not determined - yet intentionality suggests that choices are made that cluster behaviors around attractor states, yielding a physical reality that is anything but spontaneous in its structure and operations. Very interesting stuff!

    I did stumble over one statement you make - "given a precision-made coin-tossing machine and precisely minted coins, placed in a vacuum chamber and insulated from all outside influences, one can get heads 100% of the time." This is, of course, a deterministic process under the conditions described. But I think it quite a bit harder to know whether something we observe is deterministic or spontaneous, random or intentional. If you observe a large number of random coin tosses, man arbitrarily long string of heads can be found --- if one tosses the coins long enough. In my essay I use the metaphor of the 100 typing monkeys to test out that concept.

    Regards - George Gantz

      James,

      The contest is drawing to an end, and I am reviewing those I've read and am not sure that I rated. Yours I did on 4/1. Short memory.

      Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did and still do.

      Jim Hoover

      Dear James,

      I very much enjoyed your essay, including the addendum that you posted March 28.

      I strongly agree with your approach to the philosophical issues. I am a neuroscientist, and I think that misconceptions about philosophy (the big questions) have been the primary barrier to understanding the brain. Even the importance of philosophy is generally dismissed, so it is not surprising that the problems you identify have persisted.

      Your ideas about the physical basis of intentionality appear to be remarkably similar to my own, although we use different terms and it is difficult to know how similar they actually are. In your post on my essay, you disagreed with my use of 'knowledge.' But since I see similarities in our views, and since I don't understand exactly what you mean by some of your terms, I have tentatively interpreted several of your ideas and terms to be synonymous with my own. (Not coincidentally, I have given your essay the top rating, and if you win, I will try to see it as a personal victory.)

      I interpret your term "spontaneity" as an attempt to overcome the problems associated with the concept of "randomness" or "indeterminacy." To me, all of these terms denote the uncertainty associated with a state of knowledge (for example, given the present position and velocity of a particle, its future location is uncertain). Another such term could be "freedom." I do not see fundamental distinctions between these terms with respect to math and physics. If you do make a distinction that concerns more than connotation and semantic preference (which certainly do matter), I wonder how you would define them with respect to math and physics.

      These terms have been the source of a great deal of confusion, which I think comes from a diversity of scientists, each working implicitly with distinct states of knowledge. I interpret your preference for 'spontaneity' as to way to overcome these past misconceptions, whether or not that was your conscious intention and understanding. I myself make a strong effort to minimize my use of the term "random," because its clear implication is to wrongly attribute to an object what is actually a property of an observer of that object.

      I interpret your 'spontaneity' as uncertainty about the future given knowledge of the present. That knowledge (information) constrains the future, thereby limiting spontaneity. But there is always uncertainty about the future, and therefore the dynamics of a system have a spontaneous component.

      I interpret your 'individual' as information that is local in space and time, and therefore at least partially distinct from all else. I presented my views in detail in a 2012 open-access article in the journal "Information." My understanding of information and logic (knowledge and reason) comes from Jaynes (2003 textbook), although I have my own understanding of its relation to physical systems.

      I also believe that a proper understanding of knowledge resolves the problem of free will. It does exist, because no observer has omniscience with respect to the future. It often appears not to exist, because scientists imagine omniscience, with the result that every event appears to be causally determined, or random, or a combination of these. If one abandons the pretense of omniscience (not so hard to do), the future is not fully determined by present knowledge, and thus we have "free will."

      You suggest that the spontaneity present at the quantum level is relevant to mental processes and free will. I agree with that, since I think that the principles are the same, whether it is a particle or person choosing a trajectory. The quantum uncertainty present at the level of a particle is negligible at the macroscopic level, and therefore can be ignored in considering brain function. But like the case of the quantum particle, the macroscopic future is uncertain due to partial information in the present, and therefore there is spontaneity and free will.

      I have just now responded to your comments on my essay. Thank you for both your essay and comments.

      Best wishes,

      Christopher

        Thank you, Jim. I'm half-way through your essay, then house guests. Will return to it today.

        Hello George

        I like your definitions of spontaneity and intentionality. I'd add, of their relationship, that whereas spontaneity is innate even to quanta, intentionality derives from a spontaneity equipped with a cognitive faculty.

        About randomness, I would say that it is always deterministic, but it may be affected by such a large number of "conjunctive" influences that the term is useful, as is probability theory.

        I look forward to reading your essay.

        Hello Christopher

        Thank you for your very interesting comments and your rating. I rated yours highly as well.

        I think the basic difference in our approaches is that yours is epistemological while mine is ontological.

        I see spontaneity as an autonomous capability of an individual entity. As autonomous, an individual can be influenced, but not determined. Knowledge is one of the influences on a cognitive individual.

        You wrote "spontaneity", "randomness" and "indeterminacy" "denote the uncertainty associated with a state of knowledge" and spontaneity is "uncertainty about the future given knowledge of the present" so "knowledge (information) constrains the future, thereby limiting spontaneity."

        Because of my ontological perspective, I disagree with your idea that spontaneity is uncertainty (an epistemological category). I would say knowledge might inhibit (i.e., influence) spontaneity, but it can also disclose future possibilities, which can empower a spontaneous individual.

        Regarding "free will", I think "willfulness" avoids the objection that will (the exercise of intention) is not absolutely free, but inhibited in some degree, although genuinely spontaneous (undetermined). And so I don't understand your contention that will is just the product of uncertainty.

        Agree or not, thank you for the stimulating thoughts!

        Dear James Robert Arnold

        I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

        I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

        Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

        Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

          Hello

          I've already read and rated your essay. I believe I wrote about it too, but I'll have to go check.

          Dear Sirs!

          Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

          New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

          New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

          Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

          Sincerely,

          Dizhechko Boris

          James,

          I was delighted with the excellent way your essay refutes the idea that subjective experience and intentionality don't exist, and also the excellent way that your essay refutes the idea that AI "will eventually be indistinguishable from human minds". As you say: "to imagine they can constitute a holistic intelligence out of separate and indifferent parts is to forego scientific thinking for a divergence into the magical."

          Regarding emergence, I agree that "liquidity" is not an example of emergence: "Liquidity is just a manifestation of objective relationships between molecules, but on a larger scale." I also agree that consciousness is not something that emerges: "Consciousness is not a system of extrinsic objective relationships; it is intrinsic, it has a subjective interiority." I would say that the content of the consciousness of living things is a whole structure of categories of information and their relationships to other categories: I would claim that the knowledge aspect of reality is a primitive, logically necessary aspect of reality, possessed by the things of reality, even particles.

          What you call quantum "spontaneity", I would identify as "free will" or "creativity": true emergence in the sense that a new rule has been added to the system (so to speak). I would claim that we are literally embedded in the fabric of the universe-system, and that free will (e.g. to step by step navigate towards a goal) is like creating and adding new local initial-value rules to the system (so to speak).

          Regards,

          Lorraine

            Hello Lorraine

            Thank you for your comments.

            I don't disagree that "spontaneity" could be described as "free will" (my "willfulness") or "creativity." But they run the risk of being criticized as anthropomorphic. "Spontaneity" seems the most basic, natural description.

            I used to be a programmer too. I've never met a programmer who believed in AI.

            I look forward to reading your essay.

            Write a Reply...