CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness by James Robert Arnold
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Essay AbstractThe concept of quantum spontaneity is introduced to provide a non-deterministic model of consciousness that can accommodate our intuitive sense of self, consciousness, intentionality and willfulness.
Author BioA retired philosopher, published in physics and philosophy, formerly affiliated with UC Santa Cruz. Lives in Northern California.
Download Essay PDF File
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
I should mention that the last two sections were summarized to fit within the contest limit.
One sentence I'd like to clarify is "the source of spontaneity is ubiquitous, although not necessarily extant":
Nature, the source of spontaneity, is ubiquitous, although not necessarily extant -- meaning that its spontaneity is expressed through individuality. I believe it's important to avoid any duality, as of a universal consciousness which exists transcendent of, or apart from nature.
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
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...
view entire post
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.
view post as summary
Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Hi James –
It’s nice to find an essay that’s intelligently written and well-informed, and I’m sorry that my comments are somewhat critical. You do make an important point, that’s also central to my essay – that causal determinism is the result of non-causal quantum behavior, and not just a given, in physics. I have no problem with calling QM “spontaneous”, though I also...
view entire post
Hi James –
It’s nice to find an essay that’s intelligently written and well-informed, and I’m sorry that my comments are somewhat critical. You do make an important point, that’s also central to
my essay – that causal determinism is the result of non-causal quantum behavior, and not just a given, in physics. I have no problem with calling QM “spontaneous”, though I also see no problem in calling it “random” and “indeterminate”, so I apparently missed the point you were trying to make there.
I also agree with your conclusion – that we can reasonably believe in subjectivity, despite dogmatic determinism. But I don’t see this as a significant step toward understanding how our self-awareness emerges, since the notion of an all-encompassing determinism just seems to me foolish. Quite apart from quantum spontaneity, as soon as we get to the evolution of life we’re dealing mainly with non-causal factors, e.g. mutation and natural selection. Even if molecular interaction were perfectly deterministic – and indeed it needs to be quite precisely predictable for cells to be able to reproduce – what accounts for the evolution of life is not obedience to causal dynamics, but the statistics of variation and environmental fitness.
I don’t really understand why efforts to understand subjective awareness so often involve arguments about “determinism” and “free will”. As you say, “consciousness is not a system of extrinsic objective relationships; it is intrinsic, it has a subjective interiority.” Or to put it simply, it has a point of view in the world. (You might check out Forrest Landry’s contest essay on this.) “Interiority” can’t be an objective characteristic of anything, and I think most of the confusion about defining “consciousness” comes from trying to distinguish things that objectively “have” it and things that objectively don’t.
Anyway, thanks for your entry and good luck in the contest.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Conrad,
Thank you for your comments.
The problem with conceiving the fundamental elements of Nature as “random” or “indeterminate” is that they provide no basis for rational behavior at the level of human development. Like a deterministic basis, they require some sort of rupture, or magical leap, to get to all the features of willful, creative, and rational experience.
Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:06 GMT
I guess my approach is rather different from yours, though we seem to have points of agreement. It seems to me there are a great many remarkable "leaps" along the way from quantum physics to the human mind, all quite different from each other, and none of them "magical" or inexplicable. And I see many levels of randomness, as well as new ways of determining what happens. But your concept of "spontaneity" may be a good way of encapsulating all this, to emphasize what all the various modes of evolution have in common.
Thanks again -- Conrad
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
Conrad,
I'd be interested in examples of the "leaps" you mention.
Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 13:54 GMT
The most fundamental transitions I describe in
my essay are the emergence of self-replicating systems and the emergence of human communication. I suggest that the emergence of deterministic physics from the spontaneity of the quantum realm is closely analagous -- in all three cases, a new dynamic comes into being that can keep itself going recursively, subject to natural selection. But there are many other important discontinuities -- e.g. the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, which Nick Lane thinks was a far more unlikely accident than the origin of life itself. I hope you'll take a look at my effort and let me know what you think.
I make the point that even though the determinism of classical physics is not fundamental, no higher-level structure could ever have evolved if atoms and molecules and larger physical systems did not behave in very precisely uniform and predictable ways. As to randomness, this is important at many levels -- e.g. Ellis writes about the chaotic "molecular storm" going on all the time in living cells. So I see the emergence of new kinds of spontaneity always as involving new constraints that then open up new levels of accidental possibilities.
Thanks for the chance to comment -- Conrad
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 00:01 GMT
Dear James Arnold,
A fascinating paper. Thanks for your review of Chalmers, Dennett, Nagel, Penrose, Pinker, Searle, Sperry and others. I haven't looked at them for years, but agree with all your analysis. Funny how one can achieve a name in this field when it's obvious one doesn't know whereof one speaks. Anyway, your summary is valuable, particularly for those who may not know recent...
view entire post
Dear James Arnold,
A fascinating paper. Thanks for your review of Chalmers, Dennett, Nagel, Penrose, Pinker, Searle, Sperry and others. I haven't looked at them for years, but agree with all your analysis. Funny how one can achieve a name in this field when it's obvious one doesn't know whereof one speaks. Anyway, your summary is valuable, particularly for those who may not know recent history. Today it is apparently "integrated information" and "microtubules" approaches that are setting us up for new batches of spectacular papers rich in detail...
"
There is no emergent transition from a network of firing neurons to conscious experience of pleasure or pain."
Elsewhere I quote Santayana:
"
All of our sorrow is real, but the atoms of which we are made are indifferent."
I fully agree with you that "
consciousness is not a system of extrinsic objective relationships; it is intrinsic." Then it falls upon us to identify the source or location or nature of this 'intrinsicity'.
You say Penrose is a quantum physicist, but he's really more of a general relativist I believe. Nevertheless, as you note, by locking himself into 'microtubules', he is a reductionist. I have not yet understood what, beyond pretty and intricate pictures, people see in a specific large molecule. Yes, microtubules dynamically construct themselves and deconstruct themselves at their ends, but what element in the cell does not in one way or another do the same?
Although it's only a change of terminology, I very much like your change of focus from 'random' and 'indeterminate' to 'spontaneity'. Despite that Searle says "
quantum indeterminism is the only form of indeterminism that is indisputably established as a fact of nature", this is interpretation-dependent, leaning heavily on Copenhagen and 'collapse'. Wave functions evolve deterministically through Schrodinger, and there is conceptual conflict between the physical wave property and the 'wave probability' function that is beyond the scope of a comment to resolve.
'Spontaneity' brings something to the local event that seems missing in 'random' and 'indeterminism'. I encourage you to develop this idea further. You have perhaps captured it when you trace it to an
inner dynamic. In fact, spontaneity in consciousness carries with it a sense of "appropriateness".
I also like your 'no-cause' analysis of indeterminacy. You ask 'what can spontaneity offer?'. I think it offers a sense of appropriateness.
I do not identify this feature as rooted in quantum mechanics. For an indication of why, I refer you to my recent paper:
The Nature of Quantum Gravity Spontaneity may be the '
least biased interpretation of quantum phenomena', but, more so, it is probably the most
appropriate characterization of consciousness, and fits my field theory fairly well. Unless one is a believer in 'entanglement' [which is in almost every case 'monogamous'-linking two and only two particles], quantum events are local, even if the locale is as large as a microtubule. No one believes (I hope) that a quantum relation spans the entire brain, whereas the field that I propose does exactly this. So mind and intelligence are
locally global versus
locally local.
You hint at this when you say "
we need to discover a connectedness between levels of individuality in order to establish a continuity from quantum to human."
It is not as clear to me that "
this is the comprehensive continuity that the concept of spontaneity can provide…"
For "
comprehensive continuity" I believe one needs a field, operating at all scales from electron to brain. Rather than argue technical points about space "
roiling with virtual particles" [leading to predictions that differ from reality by 120 orders of magnitude!] I would hope that you might keep the baby of 'spontaneity" and throw out the confused quantum basis, in favor of attempting to apply 'spontaneity to the field' that envelops all the many pieces of the puzzle.
I would change your final statement [before the conclusion] to:
"…
brain function doesn't cause consciousness, it in-forms it."
Thank you for a most rewarding read.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:39 GMT
Edwin,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I imagine we'd have a great conversation if we could sit down and talk.
I'll have to think about your preference for "in-forms" in "…brain function doesn't cause consciousness, it in-forms it."
I ran out of space, but wanted to elaborate on "convergence" in a way that is not dualistic -- treating Nature as
in each individual, not something something separate and transcendent.
... and I will look at your "The Nature of Quantum Gravity."
Thanks again.
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 06:21 GMT
Dear James Arnold
I am trying to plough through all of the better papers here and found yours particularly unique and insightful. Here are some jotted thoughts along the way:
Didn't particularly agree that causality is emergent, or a derivative physical principle. Is the speed of light emergent from quantum mechanics? I guess you wanted to dispatch causality quickly and space...
view entire post
Dear James Arnold
I am trying to plough through all of the better papers here and found yours particularly unique and insightful. Here are some jotted thoughts along the way:
Didn't particularly agree that causality is emergent, or a derivative physical principle. Is the speed of light emergent from quantum mechanics? I guess you wanted to dispatch causality quickly and space considerations prevailed.
Totally agree we should be posing alternatives to randomness and indeterminacy, for the reasons you presented. Is "spontaneity" going too far for the current scientific worldview? - particularly in your terms of "autonomous dynamism". My current favourite is Heisenberg's "potentia", but no-one seems to use it. That said, i suspect you will end up being correct, because it seems to be our only way out of determinism. Bohm's "mind like properties" of simple quantum systems also come to mind. The trouble is, i don't think we will ever have direct proof of what you are saying in biological systems, as the scale is too small and delicate.
Loved your dispatch of dogmatic materialism into the outfield. This stuff is intellectually too easy, and is holding us back. Congrats on the sustained barrage.
"There is a problem that quantum effects would seem to be already nullified at the molecular level, before they can influence conscious behaviour." Are you aware that the emerging field of quantum biology is putting this statement in serious doubt? Various work is being done on photosynthesis, neuronal microtubules etc., demonstrating sustained quantum coherence in biological systems, thus opening the way to your interpretation of QMs.
"As a convergence, brain function doesn't cause consciousness, it enables it" - Yes! Totally agree
So...loved your essay & scored accordingly.
If you can, do visit my "From nothingness to value ethics". My approach may open up the CONTENT of consciousness (largely ignored by consciousness "experts") -i.e. emotion cognition, ethics, motivation, dreams etc. I also envisage consciousness working in the brain via your "spontaneity" but tend to head down a dualistic path beyond that...
Best regards
Gavin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:06 GMT
Hello Garvin
Thank you for your review.
The essay definitely suffers from brevity, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
To your question, no, the speed of light isn't emergent in my interpretation, it's a physical property, built-in to the framework of the universe, not directly causal or spontaneous. Like the forces, it structures the physical relationships of quanta, whether they're considered causal or not.
Regarding spontaneity in biological systems, check out the link to Martin Heisenberg's reserch (son of Werner BTW) indicating that unicellulars (and fruit flies) display "random" behavior.
I'm looking forward to reading your essay.
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:08 GMT
Ouch -- I apologize for calling you "Garvin"!
Must re-read TWICE before submitting!
Gavin William Rowland replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Hi James
You may find this article of interest:
Boisseau, R. P., Vogel, D., & Dussutour, A. (2016) Habituation in non- neural organisms: evidence from slime moulds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 283 (1829)
I think it is the most conclusive evidence yet of learning and decision making in unicellular organisms.
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:29 GMT
Thank you for that link, Gavin. (Note my learned aversion to calling you "Garvin"... slime molds got nothin on me!)
hide replies
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear James,
I enjoyed reading your essay, you discuss various positions on the problem of consciousness and propose an answer based on what you call "quantum spontaneity". I will have to think more at this, because I still try to understand the differences/advantages of quantum spontaneity as compared to quantum randomness due to the wavefunction collapse, or the spontaneous collapse interpretation, in the foundations of QM and also in consciousness. Also you may be interested in, although you probably know it, the
free will theorem of Conway and Kochen. This is one example of how QM is more than simply randomness, so this maybe supports your idea of spontaneity.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
The Tablet of the Metalaw
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 15:20 GMT
Cristi,
I much prefer "willfulness" to "free will." It avoids the implication of freedom from influence.
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 10:55 GMT
Dear James,
I have read your deep analytical essay with great interest. I believe that it is possible to solve the "difficult problem of consciousness" if first to solve the super difficult problem of ontological basification of mathematics (knowledge). Modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is primarily a crisis of ontology. By the way, the idea of "spontaneity of consciousness" was developed by the
mathematician, philosopher Vasily Nalimov (1910-1997) He set the task before the fundamental science:
"to build a model of the self-aware Universe." Why did not he solve this problem? I think precisely because mathematics itself is going through a crisis of bases. This crisis is more than a hundred years old, but mathematicians "sweep it under the carpet". Sincerely, Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 16:17 GMT
Vladimir,
Thank you for your most intriguing post. It reads much like an oracle.
I have long considered mathematics, especially
ratio, as skeletal to the universe -- structural, but
barren. Is that my weakness? I'm open, but dubious.
Regarding Nalimov, there is very little about him in English. His "spontaneity" may be translated badly as "probability" or "uncertainty" in the few English mentions I've been able to find.
At https://www.uia.org/archive/ency-strategies-comm-15-5 Nalimov's "probability" is said to imply that "man is never free", being dominated by ontological probability. That doesn't seem to rise to "spontaneity."
Can you elaborate here on the "crisis of bases" in mathematics, or provide a reference, preferably to something you've written (in English please -- my Russian is barren!).
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 00:20 GMT
Validimir,
Once again I haven't noticed that I'd been logged out. That should really be more obvious than the little black-and-white at the bottom. Somewhere I read how to get "anonymous" changed to "me"....
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:53 GMT
James.
Link to my essay FQXi – 2015:
The Formula of Justice: The OntoTopological Basis of Physica and Mathematica* Also a good article S. Cherepanov
"THE SUBSTANTIATION OF MATHEMATICS: A NEW VIEW ON THE PROBLEM" (I do not know English, my assistant is always GUGLE.)
I believe that Cherepanov sets the right direction for solving the problem of substantion (justification / foundation) of mathematics: "to construct the model of regular process which does not dwell and always lead to something new and new." But I can not agree with approach proposed by S. Cherepanov. Problem requires more fundamental synthetic approach and synthetic method – the ontological construction.
"Substantion (justification / foundation) of mathematics": I use the comprehensive term – the ontological basification. The ontological basification includes the ontological substantion, justification, foundation: the ontological construction framework, carcass and foundation of mathematics (knowledge).
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear James Robert Arnold,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear James Arnold,
i followed a similar attempt as you in my first essay here on FQXi. Sponteanity is an interesting concept and first of all your attempt to describe emergence as convergence. If the structured aggregate of human consciousness indeed converged from its underlying sponteanity of the mircrophysical parts, then i think one has to conclude that these myriads of parts can somehow dissolve their individual perspective into a bigger perspective (human consciousness), a bigger sponteanity. Anyways, your essay was a good reading, especially how you deconstructed the expert's theories on this field. Good work, i gave you the highest score for this contribution. If you like to read what i think about the essay contest's questions, i would be happy if you would read and comment on my own essay.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Thank you, Stefan.
Have you gotten a "1" rating from anyone? I did -- anonymously, an obvious attempt at sabotage. I've filed a complaint.
To your post, you wrote: "If the structured aggregate of human consciousness indeed converged from its underlying sponteanity of the mircrophysical parts..."
I didn't explain "convergence" well -- I was up against the 25,000 character limit. I see it as the metaphysical One, Nature, that focuses, converges, wherever there's a structure capable of individuality.
I'm going look for your essay....
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 19:40 GMT
Nice essay Arnold,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent like…
1. Searle and others don’t disagree that consciousness is a purely physical effect. Searle even believes that “there is not and cannot be any question whether a machine can be conscious and can think, because the brain is a machine”,19 but he argues that there is more to thinking than computation. His thought...
view entire post
Nice essay Arnold,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent like…
1. Searle and others don’t disagree that consciousness is a purely physical effect. Searle even believes that “there is not and cannot be any question whether a machine can be conscious and can think, because the brain is a machine”,19 but he argues that there is more to thinking than computation. His thought experiment of the Chinese Room20 has shown that computing is simply a projection of human intension without intrinsic comprehension: A person in a blind room with no knowledge of a particular language (e.g., Chinese) can take inputs of incomprehensible script through a slot, process each according to a menu of rules, and output responses that can seem intelligent, although actually meaningless to the person in the room.
2. An important recognition provided by the distinction between aggregates and individuals – already mentioned abstractly in terms of Sperry’s wheel, but now framed in a metaphysic – is that causality is specifically characteristic of dynamic aggregates and conglomerates (i.e., unstructured aggregates).
………………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay. Here reproduction of Galaxies and movement of masses with a purpose or goal, intentionality in the Universe also can be visualized. Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc. Name of essay is “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:41 GMT
Thank you, Satyavarapu
I just got another '1' rating. What a laugh. Not a '2' with critical remarks. Just a '1'. I must be threatening someones' precious beliefs.
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:47 GMT
I'll read your essay, and give you a response.
Avtar Singh wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear James:
I enjoyed reading your essay and agree completely as it reinforces spontaneity at the quantum level with free will or consciousness rather than randomness. My paper is a mathematical and physical extension of the ideas in your paper leading to the predictions of the observed universe.
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I appreciate it very...
view entire post
Dear James:
I enjoyed reading your essay and agree completely as it reinforces spontaneity at the quantum level with free will or consciousness rather than randomness. My paper is a mathematical and physical extension of the ideas in your paper leading to the predictions of the observed universe.
Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I appreciate it very much.
FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as “Randomness” in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways – first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.
Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system – quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.
FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.
I have forwarded a humble and example proposal detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest paper -
FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE .
I would greatly appreciate any feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 12:03 GMT
Dear Arnold,
With pleasure I must confess that human mind is so creative and so ingenious to construct such fine arguments to get around even complex issues. A possibility gets created for a new direction. Even though I made a good effort, yet it is always possible that I may have missed certain points.
Indeterminacy is not the lack of knowledge or measurement: If we trace back the...
view entire post
Dear Arnold,
With pleasure I must confess that human mind is so creative and so ingenious to construct such fine arguments to get around even complex issues. A possibility gets created for a new direction. Even though I made a good effort, yet it is always possible that I may have missed certain points.
Indeterminacy is not the lack of knowledge or measurement: If we trace back the universe with entirely causal determinism, we would never be able to arrive at the origin, since a deterministic universe cannot come into existence from null reality. Since that would contradict the very determinism itself. And it is not a chicken and egg problem. On the contrary, if we presume that the universe is eternal then again we run into a problem, all existential processes must have been completed in the past of the eternity unless the universal phenomena was purely cyclic. Limited indeterminism allows both possibilities, a beginning or eternity. Yes, indeed the indeterminism must be limited, otherwise, there would be no constancy in any function, no pattern, no laws, no prediction.
"None such [undetermined quanta to determined macro] interpretations of the quantum level can be reconciled with the macro." This seems to be entirely agreeable. But I see it as -- macroscopic universe also must be indeterminate, within limits.
There are certain descriptions or function (in or beyond the universe) that are non-falsifiable. For example, mathematical theorems, and causality. Causality must hold, even if limited, otherwise the universe would become implausible. That is, if there is a definitive function (spontaneity) that gives rise to causality in a deterministic sense, then that function itself must be bounded by causality and determinacy. It is just transferring the function of causality to a different level, it does not get rid of causality at the most fundamental level. What I am suggesting is that in place of pushing the causality to a different level, it may be suggested to work with limited determinism. If the description of all fundamental entities had an analog detail which could not be described with finite number of parameters, yet its permitted transitions are only in quanta with only finite possible states, then it has unlimited resource to generate indeterminism, yet bounded by the limited possible quantum outcomes in any interactions. Given so many mathematical functions that may accept parameters of infinite range, yet producing finite discrete results, such an assumption might not appear as arbitrary.
"At the least, there is no obvious necessity that consciousness should be considered determined ...". Yes, in fact a relation between tangible material world and the intangible "conscious world", is not 'obvious' in the present, but a natural mechanism does exist, which seems to have eluded the consideration of the scientific community in relative plain sight.
I suppose, the most central argument is -- "... seeking to account for our sense of being causal agents, if only as the causally determined agents of randomly determined interpretations of causally determined events." While the statement is very nicely made to enmesh the agency and the deed, but the question remains -- how does the perception of "being causal agent" arise? The statement seems to strike in our minds as the definition of the 'sense of causal agency', but then it depends on our analytic mind to understand it as such. As I notice further on, this argument did not manage to avoid a metaphysical explanation to bring in willfulness; I am not saying metaphysical argument cannot be correct.
Your essay certainly offers a radically new perspective.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:57 GMT
Hello Rajiv
Thank you for your evaluation. We are obviously far apart philosophically.
Regarding indeterminacy and determinism, I do agree that trying to apply it all the way back to the beginning is problematic. But you seem to be ascribing to a qualified determinism, applicable in the present, and my point is that determinism is always derivative of spontaneity -- not that it doesn't exist, but that it is limited to interactions among aggregates.
"How does the perception of 'being causal agent' arise?" I did mention that we are causal agents, and influenced by causes, but being spontaneous, we are capable of willful and creative causation.
"This argument did not manage to avoid a metaphysical explanation to bring in willfulness; I am not saying metaphysical argument cannot be correct." Yes indeed. I offered it as an
alternative metaphysic, an alternative to the currently ascendant deterministic metaphysic. I should have called it ontological, which is as far as I took it, making no claim about the ultimate source and meaning of it all.
Thank you again for a thoughtful (and creative!) critique.
Ian Corbett wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 00:51 GMT
Dear James,
I enjoyed reading your essay. I would like to have seen more of your "metaphysic" and less criticism of materialist theories, but it seems with your idea of spontaneity and "convergence" you've solved Searle's problem and explained intentionality in a naturalistic way. Great job!
Sincerely,
Ian Corbett
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 21:28 GMT
Your essay makes some interesting points. There are some aspects with quantum mechanics that I thought I would comment on.
Quantum mechanics is completely linear. Quantum states are vectors in a linear vector space, called a Hilbert space, that are transformed by matrices. These vectors add linearly, and these matrices are linear operators. In fact quantum mechanics is so linear it is the simplest things around. Further, the evolution of quantum states is governed by unitary operators that obey the Schrodinger equation. As a result quantum mechanics is completely deterministic.
The spontaneous acausal aspect of quantum mechanics comes about with measurement. This involves the coupling of a classical or on a gross scale nonquantum measurement system to the quantum system. There are a number of ways of seeing this. The measurement system is ultimately quantum mechanical, but too large to describe. As a result quantum phase from the system measured diffuses into the vast number of states of the measurement apparatus. We could also rack this up to the nonlinear aspects of a classical system (only classical systems can be nonlinear) perturbing a linear system.
This means the acausal aspects of quantum mechanics, say this popping spontaneous properties of quantum mechanics, are not really quantum mechanics. It is a matter of how a quantum measurement induces a system to become decoherent.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
Thank you, Lawrence. Yeah, I have to say, quantum theorists are even harder to pin down than quantum particles! If you repeat one quantum theorist's position that the quantum world is fundamentally random, another will say no, it's actually deterministic -- so deterministic you can't even believe how deterministic it is.
Regarding the meansurement, I wrote a little piece in response to the Schrodinger's Cat experiment: Instead of a cat, put "Arnold's Clock" in the chamber, let the uranium decay and stop the clock instead of kill the cat, open the door and see that your measurement, or your observation, had nothing to do with when the clock "died."
Or take "the collapse of the wave function", an equation that if called a "curve function" might be clear enough to quantum enthusiasts that they could realize that it's like a bell curve, not a particle wave, and the "collapse" is just the resolution of the former indeterminacy. (So you're sitting in a chair, supposedly watching the baby; you fall asleep, then wake up in horror that you can't see where the baby has crawled off to; but just before you went to sleep you noticed your watch, so you know it was 5 minutes ago, and so you construct a probability function describing where the babe could have crawled off to. You find the babe, and your probability function "collapses".... How exotic!)
I expect you'll say I just don't understand -- That when I quote quantum theorists who say it's all about randomness it collapses the quantum theory function, and suddenly my quote creates a new state, -- and now quantum theorists say it's all about determinacy.... YesNo?
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi James,
This is a great essay that takes a novel approach to the "tough problem". You make a very good case for convergence instead of emergence (that is clear and well written).
If you take a look at my essay you will see a very short dialog version of the "tough problem".
If you take a look at www.digitalwavetheory.com you will see how Heisenberg flubbed "uncertainty", and see a concept of discontinuity that I believe fits with your model.
It is so refreshing to see this essay. Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
Hello Don
Thank you for your comment. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed your refreshing essay, and I'll comment on it there. And I'm looking forward to reading digitalwavetheory.
Thank you for giving me reason to smile! (Not to say an irresistible impulse!)
Jim
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 13:14 GMT
James,
A very well written and interesting essay with an impressive and undeniably 'individual' analysis & interpretation of the present state QM. I agree your hypothesis is on the right lines and that currently perhaps; "spontaneity is the least biased interpretation of quantum phenomena. , and your two sound 'bookends';
"..once the relationship between the two...
view entire post
James,
A very well written and interesting essay with an impressive and undeniably 'individual' analysis & interpretation of the present state QM. I agree your hypothesis is on the right lines and that currently perhaps;
"spontaneity is the least biased interpretation of quantum phenomena. , and your two sound 'bookends';
"
..once the relationship between the two “worlds” is better understood and resolved, the nature of mind and the alleged anomaly of intentionality can become comprehensible and philosophically unobjectionable." and;
"
given a viable structural framework Nature could converge, and become focused and dynamic in individuality.I too disagree with Dennet who denies the observer/detector dependence also addressed in my own essay, and agree
"...quantum events, if they are to be considered as they actually are, not (“indeterminate”) as they are observed, and not associated with randomness, can best be described as spontaneous." Have you looked also at correspondence with continuous spontaneous localisation (the 'other' CSL!)
However, you write;
"..on the quantum level there is no evidence of influences that could be interpreted as provoking “randomness.” If we get down to spinning sphere momentum exchange at some tangent point we get a 'surface' distribution of amplitude with latitude. You can even touch a sphere blindfold and answer if it's clockwise or anticlockwise. Now touch it at the equator. Can you answer? Forced answers may be random 50:50! I agree that's not current QM, but note the distribution with latitude is by the cosine, as (orthogonally) is surface angular momentum ..so should it be?!
You write;
"spontaneity suggests independent, uncaused behavior that expresses an inner dynamic. At the quantum level the dynamic may be so simple, and its means of expression so extremely limited, that there is no practical reason to distinguish it from “uncaused.” Hmm. That sounds precisely correct, but do you suspect a 'reason' may actually exist, perhaps improved 'classical' understanding of quantum interactions (cognitive dissonance aside)?
Anyway, great essay with some important analysis well written, and deserving a higher placing. Doubtless it's been 'trolled' with a few 1's (my 1's are now in double figures!) so my score should help.
Best of luck in the contest
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Hello Peter
Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging comments. Unfortunately, your rating seems to have been negated by another "1 bomb." (There needs to be some method to prove one's maturity before being allowed to rate essays!)
Regarding the spinning sphere, can you give me a link to the full description of the experiment? Without knowing more about it, I'd suspect that given only two options, a 50-50 distribution would result whether by "randomness" or spontaneity.
I'm gonna go read your essay....
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
James,
My long conversation with Stefan on my string gives a complete run through of the mechanism (March 4). The video is here;
Classic QM video or a compressed glimpse here;
100 sec flash vid. QM's 50:50 should arise from the random nature of particle orientation; around 50% will have north left and 50% right. But QM has a 2nd ('complementary') orthogonal distribution! which is what has confounded classical analysis. I show exactly where that comes from, how the 'Cosine' distributions arises, and also how they are 'squared' to give the full QM predictions!
Of course I doubt any such advancement will ever be admitted as a new paradigm against such old well established doctrine as weirdness!
You may have noticed by now that my essay is quite dense and you need to read it slowly and maybe more than once, in 'rationalisation' brain mode! But I'm certain you'll find it's worth doing.
Sorry about your 1 bombs, I've just had my 11th! But the good news is I hadn't applied your rating so will do so now!
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
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!
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:43 GMT
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!
Willy K wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi Arnold
I was really struck by this sentence in your essay, “Consciousness is not a system of extrinsic relationships; it is intrinsic, it has a subjective interiority.” Wouldn’t it be a reasonable conclusion to make from that assertion that it would be much easier to study/analyze an extrinsic form of intelligence as compared to an intrinsic one (since objectivity becomes less of a problem)? My essay is premised on the basis that the Constitutional nation state is such an extrinsic intelligence and it can be objectively understood much faster than our internal mental states which are inherently subjective in nature.
This is in line with the extrapolations you make later on in your essay, “From quanta to atoms to cells to (neurological) animals…” However, the extrinsic intelligence I am referring to would require one more level of the process you described of individuals coming together to become part of a new whole.
Regards, Willy
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 10:41 GMT
"it would be much easier to study/analyze an extrinsic form of intelligence as compared to an intrinsic one (since objectivity becomes less of a problem)"
Yes, it would. I ran out of space. Bees and ants would be excellent examples of a highly developed social intelligence. But a study of such extrinsic intentionality, although "easier", would seem to me to be derivative of its intrinsic nature, and if not explicit, it would necessarily be based on implicit assumptions. For example, is the intentionality of individual humans (e.g., libertarianism) more important than that of their society (e.g., fascism), and why so? The answer, I submit, depends on your "easier", implicit belief. Thank you, I'll look at your essay with that question in mind.
Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 06:42 GMT
James Arnold,
The essence of your argument, it appears, is that consciousness emerges spontaneously (without any causal factors); and that 'such spontaneity' exists at the quantum level. I think you assume QM as the right theory; and you suggest replacing the 'randomness' in QM with 'spontaneity'.
The two main theories in physics, QM and GR, are incompatible, implying that at least one should be wrong. I am of the opinion that the 'world-view' of QM is wrong, though its mathematical equations serve as useful tools. The mathematical laws make the quantum world deterministic. When there are more than one variable, mathematical determinism allows a 'set of possible actions', not just one. This may appear as randomness.
For example, QM says, "An electron follows all possible paths. Out of the possible paths, some are more probabilistic." What does it mean? It means there are 'impossible paths', that is, maths allows only a set of 'possible paths' and the 'unknown causal factors' are more in favor of some paths. If there are no causal factors, all paths will have the same probability, and none of our computers will work. A computer works just because we can control the 'causal factors'.
QM favors a 'randomness that cannot be explained' at the quantum level, though its equations suggest an 'explainable randomness'. This 'dual nature' of QM makes it unscientific (in my opinion). However, if the interpretations of QM are taken as correct, then the term 'spontaneity' is more suitable, because 'randomness' is closer to determinism, and 'spontaneity' denies determinism of any kind.
Spontaneity, however, does not explain anything. Any physical phenomenon can be dubbed 'spontaneous', and we can refrain from explaining it. In metaphysics, it may sound great; but in science it has no value.
Jose P Koshy
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 07:58 GMT
Jose, I appreciate your engagement with what I've been contending here.
You write that spontaneity "does not explain anything. Any physical phenomenon can be dubbed 'spontaneous', and we can refrain from explaining it. In metaphysics, it may sound great; but in science it has no value."
I fully agree. But spontaneity has no value in science because science, when disciplined, when...
view entire post
Jose, I appreciate your engagement with what I've been contending here.
You write that spontaneity "does not explain anything. Any physical phenomenon can be dubbed 'spontaneous', and we can refrain from explaining it. In metaphysics, it may sound great; but in science it has no value."
I fully agree. But spontaneity has no value in science because science, when disciplined, when self-delimited to making observations that can be objectively replicated and confirmed, is outside its element in the consideration of spontaneity. Science is a discipline. If you want to delve into questions that go beyond experiment and objective evidence, you have to concede that you're going beyond science. Spontaneity cannot be observed within the bounds of science because science is bound to exclude the consideration of anything that might go beyond science.
So if you're going to be a scientist, don't try to explain consciousness, and willfulness, and creativity -- precious capabilities that you experience and express in your innermost being. Stay with science, if that's where you want to reside. To do otherwise is to find yourself in the absurd position of denying your own spontaneity, creativity, and willfulness, which are not, and cannot, be objects of science, and which are not, and cannot, be either confirmed or denied by science because they are not proper objects of science. Do science, and look outward, or transcend science, and look inward.
“Freewill is not doing what one wants, but selecting actions from the given options.” But think about it, if you are willing to think about it, which is "by the way" not a scientific "thing" to be thinking-about: The selections in your everyday life are not necessarily taken from among given, accepted options, but when you are at your best, you can choose from the creative refusal to abide by the given options, and choose a creative unprecedented option you have freely chosen for yourself. And science has nothing to do with it; science should not try to have anything to do with it.
view post as summary
Jose P. Koshy replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 13:32 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:51 GMT
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?
Jose P. Koshy replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 13:13 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 23:30 GMT
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.
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 18:19 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 19:42 GMT
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 Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 05:14 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Thank you, Jim. I'm half-way through your essay, then house guests. Will return to it today.
George Gantz wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 21:06 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 21:44 GMT
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.
Christopher D. Fiorillo wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 13:37 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 22:39 GMT
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!
Christopher D. Fiorillo replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear James,
My proposal concerns both epistemology and ontology. I think that there is only knowledge and reason. The challenge is to understand the knowledge here versus the knowledge there (how it is distributed across space and time). We need to distinguish the knowledge in a particle from our knowledge about the particle.
“I see spontaneity as an autonomous capability of an individual entity. As autonomous, an individual can be influenced, but not determined.”
Yes, I agree (although I use different terms to describe this).
“Knowledge is one of the influences on a cognitive individual.”
I believe it is the only influence. I would distinguish internal knowledge in the form of inertia (momentum) from external knowledge in the form of forces. The knowledge of an individual (analogous to inertia in this case) is only a partial cause of the individual’s future. Other causes are external forces. And all of those causes together are not sufficient to fully determine the future. The undetermined portion is ‘spontaneity’ (according to my interpretation of your ideas). I would call it uncertainty.
If we consider all the information of an individual as well as the environment, then the uncertainty about the individual’s future is further reduced (relative to only the information of the individual). However, I believe that the there is uncertainty about the future even if all the information in the universe is considered. Therefore spontaneity and free will exist with respect to both epistemology and ontology (I believe these are not fundamentally distinct, although obviously an individual has only a small portion of the information in the universe, and thus cannot be certain of reality).
Thank you again for your essay, and I hope to continue our discussion in the future.
Best wishes,
Christopher
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:44 GMT
Hello
I've already read and rated your essay. I believe I wrote about it too, but I'll have to go check.
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:25 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 00:20 GMT
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.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.