• Blog
  • Ian Durham: A Formal Model of Consciousness and Emergent Free Will

Lorraine Ford
Physicists’ models of the world are based on relationships between potentially measurable categories, and numbers that represent the results of this measurement. This model has been shown to be correct.

However, physicists do not have a model of why the numbers would ever move: they only have a model of number change that is due to mathematical relationship, but only when other numbers move. So, physicists do not have a complete model of why the numbers would ever move or continue to move.

E.g., physicists do not have a model of how Ian Durham would ever be able to move/jump the numbers, i.e. physicists do not have a model of how Ian Durham could act, or choose an outcome like reaching into the refrigerator.

The aspects of the world that logically analyse and collate information, and the aspect of the world that chooses outcomes (i.e. the aspect of the world that genuinely jumps the numbers), can only be represented by the type of logical connective symbols used in computer programs.

As well as the aspects of the world that are represented by equations and numbers, there necessarily exists logical aspects of the world, that can only be represented by the use of logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

    Georgina Woodward
    There are no excuses for your appalling grammar, punctuation, spelling, nonsensical made-up words, and half-finished sentences. Do you seriously think anybody would know what on earth you are talking about?

    How rude. I don 't claim all error and misunderstanding is due to malfunction of the device.If you have nothing nice to say, keep your ugly thoughts to. yourself.
    I've had days of frustration, from undermining my fee will to express myself.

      With those 2 foundational factors-
      Change of distribution can give rise to the variety of particles,
      ”. ”. Generation of particles _". ” ": *: chemical elements
      ”. ”. ”. ”.àrrangement of these gives materials
      and objects. From microscopic up to celestial bodies ,Further organisation and ongoing change gives galaxies.

      2 prerequisites for free will. Not dis-agreeing with Ian on this point.
      Object permanence. There has to be some continued existence when not actively observing the object. Carrots don’t dematerialize, for example. Can choose to retrieve them expecting them to be where put or near.
      Material Constancy. Objects don’t change into other things
      E.g carrot to pepper excepting development and change of state.,
      Important characteristics of Observation independent reality.

        The characteristic quality of living things is that “stuff” doesn’t “happen”. Living things make things happen in a way that can’t be explained by laws of nature: this is free will.

        Living things make movements, events and structures happen:

        • Termites build mounds.
        • Beavers build dams.
        • Human beings build houses.
        • Ian Durham bought a cap, which he placed on his head.

        Ian Durham chose to get up in the morning; he chose to dress himself in a certain way; he chose to walk towards the fridge and open the door; he chose to stand in front of an audience and speak. He didn’t have to do any of this.

        The issue is the free will of living things, who ALL make things happen in a way that can’t be explained by laws of nature.

        Living things make on-the-spot, there and then, outcomes happen in a way that can only be represented by the use of logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

        Meanwhile, Ian Durham and Emily Adlam struggle mightily to concoct elaborate, old-style, mathematical explanations, and elaborate verbal explanations, for free will and consciousness.

          Lorraine Ford
          Re explanations for free will and consciousness:

          In the end, it could come down to Ockham’s Razor, i.e. the principle of parsimony:

          1. Awkward, clunky, elaborate mathematical equations with associated awkward, clunky, elaborate verbal explanations

          versus

          1. Simple explanations which involve logical connectives, which are an almost invisible, but more basic aspect of mathematics than equations are.

            The expression '"stuff happens"was used to refer
            to the foundational relationship, not anything about consciousness free will. In reply to your repeated question.

            Competition ,timing and environment seem relevant topics for consideration and when modelling this. I may choose to eat an afternoon meal today ; though the outcome matching the decision will depend upon how many people make the same choice. For example it could be a particular variety of pie ,from a limited number baked and pool of lunchtime customers who each could buy the last pie. Or I might be a refugee and though I've chosen to eat there is not enough food to go around,

              Georgina Woodward
              Size of the competing population is relevant. Is it the entire human population or a particular group, neighbourhood, or particular individual.

              Disability and free will is also interesting. What if I can imagine and choose an outcome but not enact the fullfill ment of it, needing a helper to do the action bit. Is that still freewill? The cerebellum carries out very many automatic functions that unimpaired we think are controlled by will. Its more like autopilot that doesn't need thinking about till it gets things wrong (that not what I intended) or stops working.

                Georgina Woodward
                Is causing an action to happen according to will using a robot limb or able bodied service dog or human helper different from using one's own body in fulfillment of the will. In a philosophical way how is it different?

                If an assisted human still retains freewill, what about a domestic pet, house trained to use the garden for toilet breaks? That has to use body language or vocalisations to have a door opened for it.

                Lorraine Ford
                Ian Durham, in effect, says that the laws of nature and randomness are solely responsible for every number that applies to every measurable category for every time-place outcome, so that the laws of nature and randomness are:

                • solely responsible for building the planets
                • solely responsible for the planets’ movements round the sun
                • solely responsible for building the pyramids
                • solely responsible for every movement of the people who built the pyramids
                • solely responsible for building Ian Durham
                • solely responsible for Ian Durham’s every movement, including every movement of his vocal cords, which allow him to speak in this video.

                Because that is what Ian Durham’s symbolic equations, and associated verbal explanations are, in effect, saying.

                Ian Durham is, in effect, saying that people have no control over, and therefore no genuine responsibility for, any number that applies to any measurable category for any time-place outcome of their own bodies.

                This is not surprising, because Ian Durham’s toolbox, of tools which he uses to represent the world, contains nothing more than equations, categories, and numbers. His toolbox, of tools which he uses to represent the world, does not include logical connectives, which are the aspects of mathematics that are more basic than equations.

                But as opposed to the clunkiness of symbolic equations, logical connective symbols can be used to represent conscious knowledge of the current surrounding situation e.g.:

                (category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (category3=number3 IS TRUE)

                and logical connective symbols can be used to represent free will in response to this conscious knowledge of the current surrounding situation:

                IF
                (category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (category3=number3 IS TRUE)
                THEN
                assign number4 to category4

                Ian Durham’s toolbox, of tools which he uses to represent the world, contains nothing more than equations, categories, and numbers. But without logical connectives symbols in the toolbox, he can’t represent consciousness and free will.

                The cortex (thinking brain) can take on many tasks when the
                Cerebellum isn't able to do them. This is not easy, as how ! has to be thought about and the body part instructed. Whereas no conscious effort is normally required,
                How should we regard automatic body functions, in relation to freewill ?

                  In a differentiated world (which physicists would represent using symbols for the different categories and the different numbers that apply to these categories),

                  it is logically necessary that:

                  the world (or small parts of the world) needs to differentiate itself (i.e. the world needs to discern difference in, be conscious of, its own different categories and numbers).

                  But how does one symbolically represent this discerning of difference by the small parts of the world? While

                  “category1=number1” might represent a small part of a differentiated world,

                  “(category1=number1) IS TRUE” would represent the corresponding discerning of difference by the small part of the world.

                  In any differentiated world, a corresponding base-level differentiation/ consciousness necessarily exists. The two automatically go together: there is no mechanism which turns the one into the other.

                  While the base-level differentiation/ consciousness can never go away, the higher levels of consciousness, which can only be built out of the analysis and collation of base-level conscious information, are more malleable. Even “unconsciousness” is clearly built out of this malleability of higher-level consciousness.