Feels marooned, no questions at all ! Probably I need to improve my expression. Thanks Gregg yes *'self consciousness'* is fully accounted for & according to ALCCO is no different from [presence of intent] + [self-observation]. Concurrence with physics is fundamental. Truly yours Deepak Loomba On 11/18/2020 6:09 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote: > > From a UTOK perspective, all exchanges about free will and clear > examples of human persons engaging in examples that are offered as > exemplars should be cases of self-conscious persons operating on the > Culture-Person plane of existence. > > As such, the question becomes, does one’s theory account for (a) > self-conscious persons operating on that plane of existence; and (b) > is it consistent with the laws of physics. > > Best, > > Gregg > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:52 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK Free Will Article > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Colleagues, > > Could not resist chipping in. > > It is worthwhile to read my recently published article which very > lucidly lays out what is freedom (free will) and why it exists? There > is another angle to freedom - how does it exist ? > > Before discussing free will it is important to understand what is > meant by the word freedom. Semantics misleads as different people mean > slightly different phenomena for different words. > > Why imagining free will in context of physics of the nano is ideal and > important? > > Imagining everything in physics of particles is good because one gets > rid of meaning - yes the need for linguistic semantics & meanings > keeps reducing with complexity and for a particle (with only external > but no internal properties and thus zero complexity); meaning itself, > has no meaning or need to exist. Therefore, Physics of particles is > ideal to resolve any conundrum as there is no scope of semantic > differences. > > Keeping the aforementioned in mind kindly see my article here > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__deepakloomba.medium.com_die-2Dphilosophie-2Dder-2Dfreiheit-2Dii-2Dessay-2Dvon-2Ddeepak-2Dloomba-2D15f25ed9b182&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=EvS0-icxLDOxmMc9zo9P3O9v09cEhA3VcB1fJUZ_bgg&s=aRse6zMMSr_ez5hwnfobr4ci0sgnFTvWuOo4VyVt8Ts&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__deepakloomba.medium.com_die-2Dphilosophie-2Dder-2Dfreiheit-2Dii-2Dessay-2Dvon-2Ddeepak-2Dloomba-2D15f25ed9b182&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4P7Wfe14FomoJT7wDilnMue7HceMNrxr9FhhqR9Rj5U&s=l45bHTrmKDxQCndeT5995yN9HsCFyPcQOKr1-e8R2Uk&e=> > > Conclusions of the aforementioned article are: > > a) that existence of us as intent wielding entities in itself means > freedom or choice exists. > > b) that which can be called free at our level is actually construed of > stoichiometric, that is random at small yocto levels. > > The easiest way to comprehend the aforementioned and the article is to > imagine free will to be a bottom up process rather than vice versa. > > When you imagine freedom, you are imagining it as a top brain level > phenomenon where it originates and then percolates down to the micro > and yocto. > > Conversely, I imagine freedom as a phenomenon of yocto (10^-18) that > aggregates to observable deviation at the top in processes of brain > and then finally into motor action of humans. > > Kindly know, the moment you are calling freedom to be a top-bottom > phenomenon you are unknowingly postulating existence of two parallel > universes that of information and that of matter and energy. You are > then postulating that the parallel informational universe is the > source of information processing from where a command is received for > action at the top level - to the brain, which then is translated into > lesser and lesser complexity and all the way to the perturbations of > the individual subatomic particles forming us. (I have nothing for or > against such a hypothesis which I have myself generated in my book, > but it seems less probable to me). > > But if conversely freedom is down-top process then it has to be an > accumulation of random looking freedom at the top. > > Happy to answer queries. > > Truly yours > > Deepak Loomba > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 05:54 Peter Lloyd Jones, > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know > the content is safe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Wonderful thoughts, James. > > In Sam Harris’ book, Free Will, his argument that we have to make > a choice to do something boils down to claiming that we will get > bored by refusing to make a choice and then do something. In other > words, he thinks people do not have the fortitude to refuse to do > something. Apparently he is unaware of the dozens who have chosen > to not eat and resisted until death. Just one of them is enough to > prove his claim is unfounded. > > I am also fascinated by the concerns you mention that are not > given due consideration. Something else ignored is how so much of > our behavior is through choices made on failed memories, > misunderstood situations, misheard information, myopia, the stain > of dreams, conflation, chance encounters, and so on. How any > imagined model of determinism can account for that is beyond my > comprehension. We make choices in a web of confusion and I doubt > that there is some kind of cosmic order to our emerging > fallibility. On top of that, when two unrelated causes from > unshared paths come together, like drivers at an intersection, > what model of determinism can account for what happens next? It > could be how I meet my wife. We live in roiled stews of > influences, some crafted by us, some created by others. > > Free will doesn’t mean we make good choices and it does not mean > we aren’t influenced often beyond our awareness, and it doesn’t > mean that sometimes we don’t make free choices. But unlike the > arguments against it free will, free will is not a closed system > making a claim about every single choice. Only one free choice in > the history of mankind proves free will. But we have made many > many free choices. > > Also, we revel in the mysteries of life. We often do not want to > know the answers until we discern them on our own. We resist > looking when there’s a spoiler alert. We resist peeking at our > competition's cards. The one Christmas in which I found where my > parents had hidden my presents I was terribly disappointed in > knowing. I never again searched for my presents. We seek living > lives of discovery, which requires a robust interaction of making > choices. We also often embrace living with a bit of mystery about > ourselves. We like surprises. Against, that, determinism is an > odd, misguided, inhumane claim; it is an illusion based on bad > math and misinterpreted science. > > Lastly, there is simply no proof for determinism and never will be. > > I loved your tale from college. > > Thank you for your great ideas, > > Please, All Stay Safe, > > Peter > > Peter Lloyd Jones > 562-209-4080 > > Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. > > > > On Nov 17, 2020, at 3:33 PM, James Lyons-Weiler > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the > sender and know the content is safe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Great lay-up, Peter. > > In a network of causality, there is are processes that must be > given due consideration: > > -attenuation > > -noise propagation > > -superpositioning > > -signal canceling > > These well-known features of information propagation are > present (but undercelebrated) in Massimo's "web" analogy - as > if all causal signals from all sources are equally strong in > their effect. They are not. > > I am working on an inverse information theoretic framework > (general analytics) that reframes network relationships in a > manner that highlights relationships among relationships via > the entities they influence. It's complex but the inversion > reveals relationships among entities that are not always given > due consideration. Consider a graph of N entities with M > edges, with the usual relationships given as Ni ---- Mx ---> > Nj. An N x N adjacency matrix defines the graph. Invert > same as an M x M adjacency matrix and study connections among > entities. > > The inverse analytics focus helps us realize that complex > processes propagate via the web of webs interact - as > processes - mediated via entities. We tend to think of > entities as recipients or causal factors but they can also be > modifiers (gate switches), binary or thesholded, and they > themselves are influenced. > > Any complex system including society can be represented > completely this way given enough time and attention to detail > (right down to the spin of subatomic particles) if we have > enough energy and time to make sufficiently granular and > complete measures of everything. > > If, having done that, we cannot predict with 100% accuracy the > actions and thoughts of each human being - every thought, > every action, then free will exists. The person who decides > (like me) to do the opposite of what is expected in such a > test merely to prove free will creates free will. > > Thus, to me, free will itself is a choice, made possible via > metacognition. > > Until proven otherwise, freewill to me is always a choice. > And therein lies accountability, personal responsibility, > liability. > > Until it becomes falsifiable, positions are a matter of belief. > > The thought experiment of proving freedom of choice by some > people doing the opposite > > merely to make it so does, I think, prove free will as far as > we can tell, unless we can predict 100% who will defy > predicted actions every time. > > I once infuriated my education of psychology professor when he > claimed he could motivate anyone in the classroom to do his > bidding (I think he was trying to demonstrate operant > conditioning). He said if anyone in the classroom thought > he was wrong, we should raise our hands. I raised my hand. > "You're behind in your computational labs, Mr. Weiler, and so > here's the deal: if you leave this classroom, I'll give you an > 'A' on all of your past labs. If you do not, I will give you > an 'F' on all of the lat labs". > > Without saying a word, I packed my books into my backpack, and > left the classroom. The class burst out in giggles. > > I could hear him telling the classroom how humans operate > based on... > > And I then opened the classroom door, walked back over to my > seat, unpacked by books, > > opened my notebook, and sat attentively, waiting for the rest > of the lesson. > > The class burst out into laughter. I had clearly bested the > professor. > > The professor stopped talking. His face turned red. Then a > little purple. He stammered, > > then folded his arms and focused his gaze away from the > classroom, toward an upper corner of the room. Then, he upped > the ante. > > "This lecture will *not* continue until that person" - he > said, pointing at me - "removes himself from this classroom". > > I thought for a moment, then I packed up my bags again, and > walked toward the door. "I choose to leave for your benefit, > not mine" I said to my classmates. Turning to Dr. Pittenger, > I then offered "And the terms of the original condition are > null and void". > > While Dr. Pittenger regained his composure and completed his > lecture, I walked up two flights of stairs to the computer > lab, sat down, logged in and completed my three overdue > laboratory exercises. > > Knowing that some of us would specifically choose to defy the > prediction designed to prove the absence of free will proves > free will, pending data otherwise. > > I think. > > James Lyons-Weiler > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Peter Lloyd Jones > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize > the sender and know the content is safe. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hi Folks, > > Always being a sucker for arguments about whether or not > we have free will… > > I disagree with the argument as it is presented here by > Massimo Pigliucci. He states: > > "We live in a universe that works according to the laws of > physics, and more broadly is governed by a web of cause > and effect. If by “free” we mean that human beings somehow > have the ability to transcend such laws then science tells > us that we have no free will." > > (Just to put us on the same page, the terms “free will” > are clumsy and obfuscating. But we can keep to them for > historic reasons. The real question here, though, is about > freedom, not about will.) > > While I do not believe claims that we can transcend the > “web of cause and effect”, I also do not believe that the > “web of cause and effect” proves that we do not have free > will. So I find the opening premise as he states it to be > problematic. I think this issue is from him and others > conflating "cause and effect" with “determined.” They are > not synonymous. Just because there are causes does not > mean that caused events are determined, in the sense of > being immalleable consequences beyond the influence of > human freedom. In many of our observations it appears that > many events are caused by free choices. > > I think this conflation arises from the multiple > definitions of the word determined. For instance, if I am > hoping to ski down a hill, facilitating that choice is > determined by whether or not I have skis. But having skis > does not determine whether or not I will choose to ski. So > although causes can determine what we might choose, our > choices are not determined, in the sense of being not > freely chosen. In other words, although the laws of > physics determine what we do, the laws of physics do not > suggest that what we do is determined, to use two meanings > of “determine” in one sentence. > > This confusion is repeatedly shared within the claims that > determinism is consistent with the laws of physics, while > free will must suffer gymnastics of compatibilism in order > to be possible with or without magical justifications. > Simply put, my argument against that is that “determinism" > is what is not consistent with the laws of physics or with > the web of cause and effect. Meanwhile, free will is > consistent with the laws of physics. Of course, if this > claim of mine is true, we must then redefine the > philosophical use of the term compatibilism, or just > abandon it. > > Free will is compatible with reality, so it is compatible > with the laws of physics. Determinism is not compatible > with the laws of physics, though it is conventionally > assumed that such a claim is an unreasonable premise. But > the laws of physics make no claim about a necessary single > path of future events; they only claim that future events > must have causes consistent with the laws of physics. > Pigliucci claims that we must reconcile free will with the > facts of science, yet the facts provided are not actually > supported by science. > > Pigliucci concludes; "Again, you — and your > decision-making brain apparatus — are part and parcel of > the web of cause-effect, not something external to it and > to which things just happen. /If/ you get up and go to the > doctor /then/ you will get better. If you don’t, you > won’t. You can’t use determinism as an excuse for > inaction.” This argument, which is also put forward by Sam > Harris, claims that we must voluntarily agree to make an > involuntary predetermined choice for determinism to be > true. But refusing to do that is not "using determinism as > an excuse for inaction", it’s using free will as proof > that determinism is without merit. > > I wholly welcome comments on either side of this. > > Please stay safe, > > Peter > > Peter Lloyd Jones > 562-209-4080 > > Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able > to thwart. > > > > On Nov 16, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Henriques, Gregg - > henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > wrote: > > Hi TOK Folks, > > Since the free will v. determinism debate seems to > stir up interest, deciding to share this😊… > > Why Physicist Wrong about Determinism > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_science-2Dand-2Dphilosophy_heres-2Dis-2Dwhy-2Dphysicist-2Dgeorge-2Dellis-2Dis-2Dalmost-2Dcertainly-2Dwrong-2Dabout-2Dfree-2Dwill-2D3071a560adf0&d=DwIFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=d3qak5RWm13w17C4tFdjKymD4eodYzCo8DYMOkoyaZs&s=wLMn0Ma36b8u1-aeoC9aKjng9wckjvQGPmmcnhrArLM&e=> > > The authors view is that of a “compatibilist” which is > how I identify… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201308_degrees-2Dfreedom&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_TH0KuM1uY7YMB8u4Xb0gnsCx-AeKaJY7QhoJJZR4Ts&s=hCpCJIl3tOTaG2AIp6svGr6a20bq_U6KrqEagg9UGqU&e=> > > Best, > > Gregg > > ___________________________________________ > > Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Graduate Psychology > 216 Johnston Hall > MSC 7401 > James Madison University > Harrisonburg, VA 22807 > (540) 568-7857 (phone) > (540) 568-4747 (fax) > > > /Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with > integrity./ > > Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=EvS0-icxLDOxmMc9zo9P3O9v09cEhA3VcB1fJUZ_bgg&s=fY8ZYKxiAzV6JR34xhSQ7tldOGlwhMNrWrsk3FUeib8&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_TH0KuM1uY7YMB8u4Xb0gnsCx-AeKaJY7QhoJJZR4Ts&s=pbf_kMVKjMc3gRPAswajpRtE3pPlwoBsB77V8vdnrww&e=> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > > -- > > --- > james lyons-weiler, phd > > Author, CEO, President, Scientist > > Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=kFQHTZyJk3GBFaS6UPzZYKZiU_MACfdn6531xdUbDM8&e=> > > Guest Contributor, Children's Health Defense > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__childrenshealthdefense.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=o-vsHJ1vIjkzpycNC_Tgt-6xAFiXO-5uv9wNtn1uVeA&e=> > > The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1KNSxPp&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=zVA3l5HayAOH8RpbPSi8XrkixDG2y7g2BTQn5ka_5U4&e=> > (Skyhorse Publishing) > > Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_9814730149_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Fqf-5Fsp-5Fasin-5Fil-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D9814730149-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Dlivgrelivwel-2D20&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=UQrpKJf3i0O38R37QJIkSaT_AJT8E-aZSmE1JKIQkxY&e=> (World > Scientific, 2016) > > Ebola: An Evolving Story > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_1TGYY9r&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=JSWaXvCAXrQwL4QfM1ST_mrw6UMUjGeT-auxKr4NzMQ&e=> > (World Scientific, 2015) > > cell 412-728-8743 > email [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > www.*linkedin*.com/in/*jameslyonsweiler* > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_jameslyonsweiler&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JPBbQErRycGqHLamrnhdFoiMOMYo6MGIfJMy5l5LIdw&s=T1srYKHyZjUzb-_XnIxKaFTNeKDV5sODHhT_vpADHC0&e=> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or > click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > -- ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1