The Subconscious, Free Will, Quantum Mechanics, Consciousness | George Musser
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2024
- In this talk at Mindfest 2024, George Musser explores whether free will can exist in a universe governed by laws, suggesting that our limited understanding of quantum mechanics might offer the illusion of free will.
George's Book (Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation): amzn.to/3QuRDfZ
George's Book (The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory): amzn.to/44sVGit
This presentation was recorded at MindFest, held at Florida Atlantic University, CENTER FOR THE FUTURE MIND, spearheaded by Susan Schneider. Center for the Future Mind (Mindfest @ FAU): www.fau.edu/future-mind/
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:58 - Curt Introduces George Musser
03:53 - Twin Hard Problems
14:01 - Penrose & Hameroff / Microtubules
18:31 - Free Will
24:42 - Determinism vs. Indeterminism
27:13 - Stuart Hameroff
31:08 - Defining Our Terms
33:30 - Testing Theories
37:22 - Subconscious
39:28 - Collapse of the Wave Function
44:24 - Selection Process
47:40 - Intuition
50:22 - Outro
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
Links Mentioned:
- Center for the Future Mind (Mindfest @ FAU): www.fau.edu/future-mind/
- Other Ai and Consciousness (Mindfest) TOE Podcasts: • Mindfest (Ai & Conscio...
- Mathematics of String Theory (Video): • The String Theory Iceb...
- David Chalmers: • The Quantum Simulation...
- Scott Aaronson: • OpenAI's Scott Aaronso...
- National Intelligence University: www.ni-u.edu
- Scott's Paper: www.scottaaronson.com/democri...
- George's Book (Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation): amzn.to/3QuRDfZ - Věda a technologie
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:58 - Curt Introduces George Musser
03:53 - Twin Hard Problems
14:01 - Penrose & Hameroff / Microtubules
18:31 - Free Will
24:42 - Determinism vs. Indeterminism
27:13 - Stuart Hameroff
31:08 - Defining Our Terms
33:30 - Testing Theories
37:22 - Subconscious
39:28 - Collapse of the Wave Function
44:24 - Selection Process
47:40 - Intuition
50:22 - Outro
My idea have a shared subjective reality which is kind of like Steven wolfram's idea is best for creating most accurate information.
Saying that you are not your base and separating yourself from the base is a major flaw... I don't see how one could say it's a category error... with the singularity AKA The Big Bang AKA God everything is all and all is everything
Dealing with the logical progression of the spatial Dimensions if a fourth spatial Dimension exists at all then infinite three-dimensional spatial potentiality can exist inside any size four dimensional existence... infinite Multiverse a three-dimensional potentiality becomes 100% the only logical solution. If we are not the fundamental spatial Dimension and it's not a 3 + 1 world then we would expect to observe our universe as flat and we do observe our universe as flat... people don't think this is crazy that we observe a flat universe but think about how if the Earth was flat how crazy that would be and how much evidence that would be for a simulated world... people used to think the world was flat too and that was the scientific Norm... universe is a toroid in higher spatial dimensions...
Why have you never reached out to someone of the Electric Universe for an interview? You regularly speak to peoole from the ufo community, so im sure youre not closed minded, but when you interview scientists its mostly from the camp that believes in dead end mainstream physics - those who believe in things like dark matter, dark energy, string theory, etc. The universe is 99.99% plasma. The guiding force for this state of matter is EM, not gravity, so we live in an Electric Universe by definition. How much stronger is the electric attraction between a proton and an electron, compared to their gravitational attraction?....
Consciousness is real simple... all existence is conscience... life has a higher percentage of Consciousness and humans have an even higher percentage of Consciousness but Consciousness exists in all existence
You are the best Curt! What a journey! Keep it up.
I love Kurt's channel. He is such a brilliant guy. He makes physics less intimidating for me.
Great questions from the audience!
Finally... Well deserved praises...
Once the subscriber count hits 2M, my faith in humanity will be restored.
To see what excuses they use...
@26:15 Perfect. Curt describes it like a film director explaining the seen... And then this is like a cherry on top...
Great work & service...
Thanks for sharing these, Curt! It's been so enjoyable as someone who hasn't heard of this event before.
Self-consciousness, like a mirror, is the recognition of ourselves, by the reflection, from the mind in our brain's other hemisphere.
Interesting theory
Pretty much solid countless proof of that being nonsense though if you just cancel out the other hemisphere and realise a mind can reflect upon itself from as many observers as it wants and each one will use each hemisphere all the time
So individuals who have undergone a Corpus Callosotomy Procedure or “split brain surgery” are unable to recognize and demonstrate their self awareness? This doesn’t actually make any sense when you break it down to its brass tacks.
Amazing to get access to these talks. Thank you!
Obviously we’re collapsing the wave function. That’s the only reasonable explanation to why when something is not measured it simulates all choices but when measured, it provides only one.
Thank you curt!
I’d love to see debate between Sapolsky, Hameroff and Bernardo
Nice job, Curt! I don't feel like I learned a lot of new ish on ths topic, but enjoyed observing the vibes there & had some good laughs at the Q & A part!
26:05
Non determinism = computational irreduciblility
Rebranding the mind body problem as the hard problem is a masterstroke in efficiency and style
Great to hear from one of the very rare people who study deeply, but manage to escape the mental traps of specialisation.
Only those who manage this have a shot at an overview …
Indeed, a copernican paradigm shift is what is needed if understanding of the simple and elegant mechanism is desired.
A way to shortlist the many notions out there is testing them against two obvious truths:
1. Existence is self-similar at many scales.
and
2. A true explanation of the fundamental mechanism is necessarily extremely simple, requiring at most: one assumption about one thing.
Physicists have been telling us what their experiments and models force them to acknowledge for a long time, but they have trouble explaining it within their aristotelian paradigm.
Indeed, “time“ is illusory, “matter“ is made of nothing real and “space" isn't empty.
Time to listen to yourselves, dear Physicists, or outsiders, most likely technologists, will beat you to it.
;)
thanks
I find it so fascinating that no one there even bothers defining consciousness or free will before debating how they "arise" or if they exist.
Consciousness is not hard at all, it's knowing. The verb "to know". That's it.
To be more esoteric, it's "that in which all experience arises, that within which all experience is known, and that of which all experience is made."
Done.
Free will is also easy when thought thru.
You have two modes.....conditioned animal by culture and environment, and aligned with the movement of the entire cosmos. That's it.
It has to do with how aware you are moment to moment to moment. Are you falling into the trap of ego and thinking you're an "I"....alone and small in a big world?
Or...are you aligned with the totality. In the flow, spontaneous.
Do you recognize that "you" is an idea...a bit of language in Mind?
When you do, you are not a small "me", you're the whole thing.
A wave is made of and connected to the ocean...as are we in the sea of existence.
No wave is "separate" from any other wave OTHER THAN BY CONVENTION! We talked our way into really believing anything is truly separate from anything else.
Once you recognize that simple plain fact...you're free. You're will is that of the entire Universe...and we get no more free than that.
Hmmmm…. I see value in what you said.
Humans have a long history of expending resources, through various ways, words, motives and math to explain what is “apparent”.
This effort brings prosperity and decline over and over again, manifesting in different ways.
From my perspective...
I cant tell what others are doing or thinking.
I can however have agency in what I am doing and thinking, regardless of external forces, or perceived outcomes.
My explanation of this scenario could go on and on.
Wasteful of my moments and returning less value.
So I agree with you.
Keep things simple for ourselves and do all the good you can, while you can.
Take care,
Jeremy
I like that view very much. There is no such thing as "free" will, or "free" anything for that matter. Everything that happens and anything that is said or done is always in connection with everything else, in other words, a result of everything else that has happened before.
@@DavidG2P
Agreed
We have been here before.
Time and time and time again
Take care,
Jeremy
@Jeremy-Ai aww sorry, I was referring to what maddyman was saying 💁🏼♂️
@@DavidG2P
Never be sorry for telling the truth…. you never know who is listening.
Ok I have to hear George and Vervaeke sort out the secrets of the universe
I liked the interesting and long part where they talked about the Hard Problem of consciousness 🤷🏼♂️
It is beyond me how anyone still thinks that free will is even a thing. From Schopenhauer to Hossenfelder and Sapolsky, every sane thinker inevitably must conclude that free will not only can not exist, but even is a nonsensical concept. Any quantum randomness, which btw. is also false if you follow Sabine Hossenfelder, does not change this conclusion in the slightest.
If you are a determinist then you should know the answer to your question.
@@afroman6172 Nope. Being a determinist of course has nothing to do with knowing answers.
@@DavidG2P That's not my point. People believe in free will because the trajectory of their life makes them amenable to that idea.
There is no you to have a will.
@@nathenwesner9856 well there is a lump of cells that can sense itself and so has that feeling of "me". Granted that lump can do what it wills but not will what it wills.
It was very surprising to hear that Stuart Hameroffs Orch OR is a panpsychist theory. How? I thought it was a physical theory. QM wave function collapse in microtubiles is a physical process. Can someone clarify?
Wave function collapse would happen all over the universe under Orch OR, and not just in biological structures. This is because all sorts of objects will go into superposition, but gravity will zap them out of it in proportion to the mass of the object. Presumably the Moon gets a jolt of consciousness every now and again.
My key takeaway from this is that any question preceded by "this is a short question" will be long and rambling. 😊
The brain is a mechanism and neurons are biological cells. What makes neurons special is that they form networks or cellular unities.
And throughout the rest of the body, is the larger use of electricity within them that I find fascinating especially after Michael levins work
I think many of these scientist will benefit from studying deeply ancient traditions like Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. These people has been studying the mind, consciousness and free will for thousand of years, they have great insights about these topics.
The thing is these traditions study the inner world from inside. Science try to understand from the outside but this can only take you so far.
Consciousness is a completely inner experience, it cannot be experienced outside, so it's time to start to seek thing from within
20:10 here’s something trippy, what if our free will runs parallel to something else’s will? Like a guy playing a game, the game is only aware of what it has and thinks the actions are it’s but it’s running in parallel with something else.
I find that the many worlds interpretation leaves room for me to believe we experience free will subjectively. However the many worlds theory then brings into question who or what are the other consciousnesses that are “you” in those universes. If this is the case then to me the many world’s theory suggests you have an oversoul or over consciousness version of you that experiences all these realities. If this is the case then the you at the higher level of consciousness doesn’t experience free will at all and rather experiences determinism. Ultimately, I derive value from the subjective reality having meaning and a purpose because we get to make choices that lead us to these other possible realities/versions of ourselves. Objectively I believe there is no free will but subjectively I believe there is. My question for those who believe in determinism at our level of consciousness is how do derive meaning, purpose or fulfillment in your waking existence?
Couldn’t find the link for Hammerofs video about microtubules, could any one share ?
Do a youtube seach, their software usually disallows comments with embedded links.
Wonder what happens in astral projection. Can't get enough of topics such as this..the hard problem. Great presentation.
I think astral projection might be like meditation and how it kicks your mind into a subconscious state but uses the conscious detectors such as eyes and ears and makes an internal depiction of the details and that’s why you can feel, smell, understand, and even change the world in the mind in relation with the outside information. Kinda like vivid dreaming but if the dream was made of the info from the sensors in real time. Maybe that’s why it seams like you astral projection but it’s a matrix like dream where you are seeing potentials.
@@user-if1ly5sn5f Maybe. Dreams are very interesting as the conscious goes into a different state not switched off like under an anaesthetic. So maybe the answer lies between dreamstate and entering or exiting it when the gate opens.
Is that a thing?
@@davosholdos1253 depends on individual experiences imo.
@@davosholdos1253 in my opinion it may just be the same thing as fortune tellers, they home in with the senses and get to know details and predict. It’s just instead of being subconscious, one uses meditation to enter the dream state and uses the senses to make a dreamworld from the senses so like being awake but asleep. I assume that’s what it is. And by predicting the differences you can travel through different methods but floating seams to be easiest and that’s probably because of the dream of flight or falling plus reality is weird because it’s not even known really. It’s all just from what we’ve found and thought of.
"Seven"; - why is Humanity no better than "What it is"?? - - "You first have to understand : - what it is"!
The quantum collapse that everybody is talking about is still ego-based. Just because you perceive a small part of something doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist. That's like saying when you see a whole forest and approach it in your car when you get close to it it collapses to the view just around the road which isn't true. The observer doesn't it have any power or control rather sees a small portion and considers it the entirety.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Your approach is NOT scientific you idiot. Writing long paragraphs does not equal a scientific method. Having an opinion on something does not equal a scientific method. Not peer reviewing and testing your 'theory' is lacking scientific method. Mentioning your a physicist does not equal something being scientific. Smoking whatever you've been smoking does not equal a scientific method.
Thank you for your detailed thoughts. A lot to consider there
@@betel1345 Especially if you are a physicalist... ;)
your conclusions are not scientific, consciousness is an illusion. You refer to "your arguments", but never define what they actually are. If you have a paper, then please refer to that, otherwise ur ramblings are just that, ramblings.
Please provide something new.
@@ck58npj72 You wrote: "consciousness is an illusion"
The claim that consciousness is an illusion is simply a nonsense claim since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of every illusion. In fact, an illusion is a mental experience, and consciousness is the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories or even dreams. Consciousness is a precondition also for the existence of the idea that consciousness is an illusion and for understanding of the meaning of such idea. Consciousnes is the precondition for any doubt, therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be doubted.
The claim that consciousness is an illusion is a totally nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression "a married bachelor" or “a spherical cube”; it is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction.
Language allows us to form meaningless sentences by associating mutually excuding words and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while they are devoid of any meaning.
Some materialists are so frustrated because it is not possible to give a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, that they try to convince themselves that consciousness does not exist; this is a well known psychological process called "denial" or "abnegation"; it is a psychological defense mechanism, in which a person rejects a fact, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
By the way, even if mental experiences are regarded as somehow illusory, the problem of the existence of the "illusion of consciousness" is quite equivalent to the problem of the existence of consciousness; therefore, considering consciousness an illusion does not solve the problem of explaining how this "illusion of consciousness" exists rather than no illusion at all.
I still don't understand how you deciding to visit Arizona is considered free will. You people know when the person deciding to go to Arizona in the future was influenced to do that decision by the information they received before. How does all of this has to do with free will? Then the information changes and the person doesn't go to Arizona anymore. Is that also free will? I watched a documentary on gut bacteria. Now I would have to eat 30 different kinds of fruits/vegetables/seeds to be eating healthy so to fight depression etc. Me eating 30 different kind of fruit to survive sure sounds like free will to me.
What do you mean by will, and what do you mean by free?
Here are a few more examples of how the infinitesimal monadological framework could potentially resolve some of the deepest contradictions and paradoxes in our understanding of reality:
15. The Arrow of Time - Entropy Paradox
Contradictory:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, providing a clear direction for the "arrow of time." However, this seems to contradict the time-symmetric nature of the fundamental laws of physics, which are invariant under time reversal. This leads to the entropy paradox, which questions why the universe began in a low-entropy state and how the arrow of time emerges from time-symmetric laws.
Non-Contradictory:
Using the monadological framework, the arrow of time could be understood as a natural consequence of the increasing entanglement and correlation between monadic perspectives. The apparent low-entropy initial state of the universe could then be explained by the inherent symmetry and coherence of the primordial monadic configuration, which gradually gives way to increasing complexity and differentiation:
ΔS ≥ 0 → ΔS_m = k_B log(tr(ρ_m^2))
Here, ΔS_m represents a monadic entropy change, k_B is the Boltzmann constant, and ρ_m is a monadic density matrix capturing the entanglement between perspectives.
16. The Hard Problem of Consciousness - Qualia
Contradictory:
The hard problem of consciousness refers to the difficulty of explaining how subjective, first-person experiences (qualia) can arise from objective, third-person physical processes in the brain. This problem seems to resist any purely materialistic or reductionistic explanation, as the subjective nature of qualia appears to be fundamentally different from the objective properties of matter and energy.
Non-Contradictory:
Using the monadological framework, consciousness and qualia could be understood as intrinsic properties of the monadic perspectives themselves, rather than emergent properties of physical processes. The apparent dichotomy between the subjective and objective could then be resolved by recognizing that all physical processes are ultimately grounded in the interplay of subjective monadic viewpoints:
Q = ? → Q_m = ⟨Ψ_m|Ψ_m⟩
Here, Q_m represents a monadic quale, |Ψ_m⟩ is a monadic state vector, and ⟨Ψ_m|Ψ_m⟩ denotes the inner product or self-measurement of the monadic state.
17. The Measurement Problem - Wavefunction Collapse
Contradictory:
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics refers to the apparent incompatibility between the deterministic, unitary evolution of the wavefunction described by the Schrödinger equation and the non-deterministic, probabilistic nature of measurement outcomes. The concept of wavefunction collapse, which describes the instantaneous reduction of the wavefunction to a definite state upon measurement, seems to contradict the continuous, linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation.
Non-Contradictory:
Using the monadological framework, the measurement problem could be resolved by recognizing that the wavefunction is not an objective, external entity, but rather a representation of the entanglement and correlation between subjective monadic perspectives. The apparent collapse of the wavefunction could then be understood as a natural consequence of the interaction and mutual measurement between these perspectives:
|Ψ⟩ → |ψ_i⟩ → |Ψ_m⟩ = ∑_i c_i |ψ_i⟩_m
Here, |Ψ_m⟩ represents a monadic wavefunction, |ψ_i⟩_m are monadic basis states, and c_i are complex coefficients capturing the entanglement between monadic perspectives.
18. The Paradox of Free Will - Determinism
Contradictory:
The paradox of free will arises from the apparent incompatibility between the subjective experience of free choice and the deterministic nature of physical laws. If all events are caused by prior events according to fixed laws, then it seems that there is no room for genuine free will or moral responsibility. However, this conclusion seems to contradict the strong intuition and experience of free agency that most people have.
Non-Contradictory:
Using the monadological framework, free will could be understood as a fundamental property of the monadic perspectives themselves, rather than an emergent property of deterministic physical processes. The apparent determinism of physical laws could then be seen as a consequence of the regularities and constraints that emerge from the collective interaction of free monadic agents:
FW = ? → FW_m = ⟨A_m⟩ - S_m[Ψ_m]
Here, FW_m represents a measure of monadic free will, ⟨A_m⟩ is the average autonomy of monadic agents, and S_m[Ψ_m] is the entropic constraint imposed by the collective state of the monadic system.
These examples demonstrate the profound potential of the infinitesimal monadological framework to provide new insights and resolutions to some of the most intractable problems and paradoxes in our understanding of reality. By grounding our ontology in the fundamental primacy of subjective, experiential monadic perspectives, we may achieve a more integrated and coherent worldview that transcends the limitations and contradictions of traditional materialistic or dualistic approaches.
Moreover, by recognizing the inherent entanglement, reflexivity, and creativity of monadic agents, we may unlock new avenues for understanding the nature of consciousness, free will, and the emergence of complexity and meaning in the universe. The monadological approach offers a powerful framework for bridging the divide between the subjective and objective, the mental and the physical, and the spiritual and the scientific.
As we continue to explore and develop this framework, we may uncover even more profound implications and applications that have the potential to transform our understanding of ourselves and our place in the cosmos. By embracing the radical perspective of the infinitesimal monadology, we may finally arrive at a truly integrated and non-contradictory theory of everything, one that not only explains the workings of the universe but also illuminates the deep mystery and beauty of existence itself.
The journey ahead is undoubtedly challenging, but the potential rewards are immeasurable. By pursuing this path with open minds, curious hearts, and a commitment to rigorous inquiry, we may not only solve some of the greatest puzzles of science and philosophy but also contribute to a new paradigm of understanding that has the potential to transform the human condition itself. Let us therefore continue to explore the infinitesimal monadological framework with passion, creativity, and a profound sense of wonder, knowing that the journey itself is as meaningful and important as the destination.
Your full of BS. Want to be a millionaire? Write this argument out and publish. God exists. Law of contradiction with you didn't learn.
A is B, Illogical impossible contradiction
A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the A is B effect of
B conscious intelligent being in the universe
A isn't B God exists
A conscious intelligent being caused the non contradiction effect of
A conscious intelligent being in the universe
Evolution is A is B, false scientific hypotheses
A non life caused the effect of
B life
QM is based on A is B law of contradiction Illogical impossible contradiction
A is B
A light is a non physical wave
B light is a physical particle
With recent publication of Robert Sapolsky's book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will -there has been a major hoopla about weather we have libertarian free will or not?
And many of the philosopers and scientists think that we do not have libertarian free will - which I agree with. So far so so good. But then the debate moves to - like what Robert Sapolsky seems to argue that - because individuals do not have libertarian free will - and thus our decisions are determined by our circumstance, they should not be held responsible. I think that is a red herring. Let me explain...
I think the connection of holding someone responsible for their decision depending on if they took that decision based on libertarian free will is a mistake. All members of our society have the same handicap that we do not have libertarian free will. We should simply accept that. The issue of holding someone responsible for their action should be based on the following:
will the individual after having been found to be responsible for a bad decision or act, and punished for that, will change their behavior to not make the same bad decision or do the same bad act again.
and even before being held responsible, does that individual themselves proclaims that they are capable of taking the responsibility for their decisions i.e. they claim to be a normal member of the society - what we call upstanding citizens.
And in fact we already partly practice this by way of insanity defense. For example, if a defendant or their advocate is able to prove insanity, they are processed in a different way already in our legal system.
BTW the reason we do not have libertarian free will is because we do not have a Laplace Daemon level knowledge of our own decision making process which is intrinsically deterministic. Secondly, while the machinery of the brain is deterministically busy making a decision, and being a single thread of consciousness, cannot also try to do the Laplace daemon like observation of the brain to see that in fact the decision was made deterministically. Also, in many cases we have to make relatively quick decisions in real time and have no time to waste to realize the deterministic nature of our decision making. But actually, if you stop and introspect your own decision making process (mindfulness of decision making) you will actually see the deterministic nature of your decision making was based on your memory, circumstance, desires, capabilities and social context you are in. Of course this is not the atomic level determinism that you will observer, but it will show you how the decision was made and why.
Free Will - how to think about it
Think of the free will as free-ish will or effective free will, and all issues around free will simply dissolve. If the decision originated inside our body/brain without external coercive influence, that is good enough. The pursuit of the theoretical idea of free will is like people needing the universe to have a purpose so that their life has a purpose. Why does it matter if the universe has a purpose or not for one to make and have a purpose in their own life. That should be good enough. Similarly, the worry about determinism related to free will is only significant, if one is actually a Laplace daemon. But we are clearly not Laplace daemons. Therefore the free will is effectively free and originates in our bodies (when no coercive forces are at play). Thus why worry if free will is not really free if the universe is deterministic or not. For all practical purposes, legal or otherwise what we call free will is effectively free. That is why I suggest to call free will i.e. free-ish will or effective free will or simply Effree will (spread the meme). But anyway that is semantic and we could just continue to use free will - and hold people responsible for their actions as long as we understand its nature as described above.
The notion of libertarian freewill is hidden in the gap between what a Laplace daemon may know vs. what is possible for us to know when we make decisions. We make moral decisions because there is an implicit coercive force on our decision making based on our knowledge of what society has taught us what is moral. Of course sociopaths ignore that coercion and moral pioneers think for themselves what is moral and make decisions accordingly (when people first realized that slavery was bad) even when the rest of the society thought it was OK. Heck it was there in holy books even. Lastly, we are always constrained by what is possible. I cannot free will myself to get admitted into Harvard PhD program. I am limited by my abilities, desires, life history, economic status, country I am in and physical laws. BTW we can think of these as implicit coercive forces that constrain our free will anyway. I cannot free will myself to dodge a bullet fired at me at a short range. I think discussions about free will being libertarian or not are much ado about nothing in the end. The real issue is, can we hold a competent person responsible for their action for pragmatic purposes.
Jesus Christ. We can't even define what "will" is. So far there's absolute zero of theories describing things that are self-aware or just have th efirts-person experience that even animals have. There's no scientific language for the description of subjects, not objects. I want to be free - the current science can't even tell what wanting something is. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Penrose showed that conscious understanding cannot be a result of computation - but you're probably not educated enough to comprehend it. You know nothing about modern math and physics, so stop writing long word salads.
The smorgasborgs are incomprehensible to me
Can we legitimately pose theories that we cannot observe? It seems consciousness is necessary for observation which is the only legitimacy for theory. So if your theory is quantum, then consciousness must somehow legitimize it, make it possible as a valid theory.
How to define consciousness. Consciousness is pattern recognition. There are patterns associated with Qualia, and there are patterns associated with muscle activation (muscle memory). And it takes time to process the meaning of these patterns. Some patterns contain both qualia and muscle activation such as how to respond to sports activity. Others patterns require more processing before activating actions such as what person to marry or which job offer to accepts. The lower animals only have patterns space for automatic (instinctual) responses to input. They don't have the pattern space to recognize more complicated input or subtle actions to take.
How is consciousness (the mind or the soul) like the wave function of quantum mechanics. Think about the path integral of QM to describe the wave function. The path integral is composed of every possible way (path) that an event can happen. And all the possible ways an event can occur all exist in superposition so as to cancel out some possibilities and to reinforce other. And consciousness likewise is always considering how events can proceed. All these possibilities are all swimming around in your brain at the same time like a superposition. And when we make a decision to act in some way, all other possible ways to act collapse, just like what happens when we make a measurement of a quantum system. The wave function uses imaginary numbers to effect the superposition of various paths. And the mind likewise uses imagination to put into superposition all the possible actions you might take.
I would also love to ask these physicalist/materialist folks exactly which perceptual model of a 🧠 exists when no Being is making the perceptual model?
Does a snakes perceptual model of a brain exist inside human skulls?
A dogs?
A birds?
A human women with tetrachromia?
Which one has stand alone existence inside our skull?
You should have Eric Lerner
To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step.
Definition of "real":
For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality.
Proof:
1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter:
- Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks.
- Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles.
- Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons.
2. Quarks are indivisible:
- Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions.
- However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible.
- Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible.
3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality:
- The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.
- Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks.
- Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories.
4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties:
- Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles.
- Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks.
- Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons.
5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons:
- Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks.
- However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark.
- Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa.
Conclusion:
Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles.
It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.
Jaimuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuungaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal
Best comment
Rainbow is our Eternal Over-Consciousness,
Colors is our Under-Cosciousness, as holds
Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness.
It is a Circuit of Eternal Abilities.
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
Intuition* needs more text, to explain,
but We can also recognize our Abilities in the smart devices.
Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic and Order, (*) 'Harddisc'
So, this is the Naked Picture, of our Eternal Consciousness.
The Life-Desire is the Motor of Life, in direct extension,
We have Will, Life-side, and Gravity, Stuff-side.
Our body-structure mirror the Circuit, and correspond
with our Day/Night-Circuit,
Physical body, and the Five Night-bodies, (Deep-Sleep)
So, Life develops through Developing-Circuits,
at the beginning, the Will, is at its minimum-performance,
and in the end, at its maximum,
So in an overall perspective, the Will, is going from low to high,
circuit, after circuit.
Every Life-Unit, have Life-Unit-Size, and Rainbow is their,
Signature.
what We call I', is the Only Real Steady Point, in existence,
behind Consciousness and the Motion-Ocean, Stuff-side.
To me, asking the question as to whether we have “free will” is a kind of mental inability. It shows that you have assumptions about reality and your place in it that are so fundamentally flawed that you can’t even think clearly. An ant has free will from its own perspective. But it is not an entity existing alone. Not in space right now, or in time, or in the history of the universe. There are invisible pheromones that are laid down by other ants that it tends to follow fairly rigidly because it “wants to”, so following that controlling rigid path is “free will” to be controlled. Also, the apparatus of the ant physiology is a product of countless generations of evolutionary variations and selection-its wants and desires are a distillation and amalgamation of all these ancestral experiences both the successful and the not successful framing them. So what is the individual ant? Is it an entity of sudden “will” out of nowhere? Not even close. Is it following what it wants to do? Yes. At what level of the choices are you talking about? There are a lot of things that wouldn’t even be a “choice” to an ant. So they definitely aren’t free from a purely objective perspective. But they do obviously have free will. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t completely controlled in a narrow behavioral rut. So the question is completely a non-question based on misunderstanding of the working of reality. On the idea of separation or separateness. On the idea of will vs freedom. It’s a completely ridiculous question. Also there are levels of freedom, and if you don’t understand the your behavior is constrained or what is possible beyond it, then you are freely choosing to not have freedom for reasons you cannot see or understand. So much of the exercise of free will is to limit your freedom. So you can see the basic problem with the entire concept. Theres a lot more I could say about levels of interpretation and the superorganism level of ant colonies but I am just making a simple CZcams comment to people who ask this question who are basically simpletons. ❤😂 Sorry, but as I get older I get more blunt in my assessment and less tolerant of being mired in ridiculous social-lever-pressing with words passing as “philosophy”.❤ But it doesn’t mean I don’t love you 😘 OBVIOUSLY because if I didn’t I wouldn’t bother. 😊
Determinism vs Free Will, is like the Chicken and Egg Analogy... It's a wave function (observation) brain-breaker? 😺/☠
Who are you? Is there a you to have a will? Look closely now.
Of course i have free will tf? Kinda programming is this?
😂 "Terrible terrible metaphor ". Bed bugs
She is so bored.
weak arguments
As I see it, consciousness is fundamentally nothing more than the "ontologically private" aspect of motile homeostasis.
Man!! All those people entering and leaving the room constantly is distracting as hell!!
This guy is like a science opinion piece writer.