Computers vs. Brains__Static vs. Dynamic Hardware__Huge Diffs…

Let me just take this one paragraph, and answer the main gist of your post, with its content__as I see the heart of what you’ve stated here, Tim…

As to the dynamics of the evolving brain and intelligence, there's the possibility of a dynamic due to the frequency reception of the brain that intelligence gaps within the animal kingdom is due to the frequency and wavelength at which such brains are sensative to the EM field in which they are in. Now this would be a highly complex subject, but I could think of some potential anaologies as with the processing power of a computer vs the frequency aspects of it's processor and such.

Now here’s an opportunity to show why computers and brains are so drastically different, Tim. In the simplest relational analogies of dead computers and dead brains, we could make such relational analogies of computer hardware and software systems functioning similar to the CIA, or central intelligence agency, of the brain__but we’d be leaving out the most critical ‘central dynamic functions’, that produce the major differences between computer processors and brain processors__computers have static/fixed hardware and software systems__yes, they do allow dynamic processes to happen and be processed within them__but they do not accommodate the changing, re-arranging and re-building on the fly__of even their software, and especially not their hardware__whereas brains actually accommodate both, extremely fluidically. Now, this may seem strange and impossible upon first seeing me state this, but follow the argument closely__as the only way to describe these important differences, imo, is to go right back to the areas you are trying to avoid__the dynamics of human thought processes, processings and the ability to think and change all processes, within other processes on the fly__and the ‘biggie’, to change how the hardware itself does all the processing__by the ‘Free-Will-I-Self’, being able to move freely from hardware house to hardware house, or agent to agent and back to CIA, the central intelligence agency of perception__At totally free-will mechanics and actions… You simply don’t see this extra multiplication of processing capacities, if you are thinking the brain processes in such fixed capacity states as simple computers…

Further, in order to see the simplicity of the complexity I’ve just stated, which is far beyond the simple capacity of fixed CPU’s and other software and hardware houses/systems of computers__which is totally position fixed, where technicians and possibly yourself, built and installed the hardware and software__the brain has no fixed position for the ‘I-Self’ to be locked down say as to the central processor’s absolutely fixed position, and the software’s fixed positions on the hard-drive, memory or in add-on graphics, modem cards and such__which are all still fixed positions__whereas the brain has only one fixed position, which seems to be perception__which is the largest neural network, encompassing the entire neural system of the entire brain/mind__yet science also knows it has a CIA at the fixed point within the lower center of the brain, which was discovered by brain injured patients being studied and tested, as per the ventral and dorsal canals leading to the physical perception bio-organ, I mentioned earlier, to eliminate other possibilities__but as to where the brain’s processing ‘can’ fully take place, there’s no known fixed point__as experiments by neuro-science has shown the brain lighting up, at different times, just about everywhere, and at different places within different test patients__and now to bring this down to Earth, by the simple self-common-sense processings, you and I are more personally familiar with__Our brains can simply sit in the intuitive observer position, act within our brain’s psychology processing system, or operate/act within our brain’s logic systems, etc.__These are just three simply known separate processing functions and areas of the brain, we are all familiar with__but, this list can be extended in function to millions of dynamic inter-actions, from all the brain’s self-choosing processing activities and areas__which are multiplied by the processes of the inter-acting em-fields of the mobile ‘I-Self’, within the larger perception network__which computers just do not have, nor can these functions be built into computers__as they produce far too many complexities, programmers are simply incapable of copying, as they far exceed man’s present mathematical capacities__and will far into the future, from where my research efforts have looked__due to the mobile em-field multiplication capabilities and capacities of function, of living intelligent brains/minds… Tim, this is all part of history’s long epistemological and semeiological investigations and modelings of the mind’s mental inference mechanics, by some of the world’s greatest logicians, semeioticians, and mathematicians__that easily feeds directly into the accuracies of modern quantum mechanics’ studies, knowledge and facts__as the best QM’ers still use this information as their foundations__just as did, Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, and Schrodenger, just to mention a few__as I’ve studied the background thoughts of these great thinkers…

Tim, now let me explain the above more, in our personal language terms. You’ve known since early childhood you could observe your real inner self possibly existing within mental states of judgment, non-judgment, feelings, logic, psychology, will, emotions, reason, fear, confidence, love, hate, pain, happiness, etc., etc., etc., on and on__and you probably further tried to figure out where and who you really were inside or outside this ball o’ mush, sitting atop our shoulders__as most any child or young adult did, at one time or another, and possibly even still as an adult, do__but, you probably never considered tha ‘I-Self’ you are looking for, as its ‘True-North’ position, may just be a ‘Position of No Fixed Position’, but one of ‘Dynamic Positioning’, having the capacity of “Total I-Self Positioning” within any of the many above mentioned brain agents(allowing the extended ability to ‘self-multiply’ the self-processing capacity to almost un-imaginable heights), or even leaving and returning to the ‘CIA’ of our lil’ ol’ pea brains’ central processor(where such a model sure can explain a lot of the confused and conflated mechanics between East and West ‘one and many’ thinkings’ probs). Imo, when you can see the brain functioning in this “Dynamic Total I-Self Positioning” method__then and only then does the brain/mind become free enough to see its total own self-functioning interence mechanics, as a complex process__yet far easier understood as a totally dynamic process__then and only then, can you also see its far superior power over simple computers and black-hole mechanics__which can never choose to change its own self-processing mechanics at will__which all intelligent humans, can…

And, please don’t use my crazy ‘falling down the rat-holes’ crashes, as I experienced over the last few weeks, to compare how my brain works, most of the time__as I’m still searching out the person or reading material that sent me down that cross-wired path, I’m still recovering from__as I’m well aware of it happening, where I temporarily loose some self-control__far too much to my liking, at times… Also Tim, I’m not saying you ‘have’ to process your brain’s information in this exact fully dynamic manner, but it should at the least give you something to ponder, anew__and possibly see just why the brain may be oh so much more powerful(as to real information processing__i.e., thoughts) than either the brain-lacking geo-Universe, or a very dumb electronic computer… :-)

Higher order ideas, associations and concepts along with ever larger logical connections have a processing aspect of timing or perhaps a governing frequency threshold which establishes an aspect of the complexity by which mental connections are made, thus also the degree of intelligence.

Again here, I think the above said, more or less covers the many more logical connections’ possibilities by brains, over simple Universal functions and toy-computers__No…??? Tim, we don’t even begin to have the mathematical and scientific capacity to fully compute all the brain agents capacities__nor will we for many years to come__yet our statistical mechanics, applied to statistical probability analysis can do most of the math to understand most of the entire geo-Universe__not completely yet__but we’re far closer to mathematically understanding the geo-Universe, than to understanding the maths or complexities of the bio-Universe… This is true, hands-down, without debate…

I'm simply looking for connections between the bio/geo relationship at the brain/EM field interface. Such mechanics will always be more complex than I make them, but I cannot allow them to appear overly complex wihin my own mind whereby I get too intimidated to search for the connections which might actually be within my reach.

The simplest method I’d suggest Tim, is to search the childhood percept and concept mechanics, you used then__as early as you can go... Do you remember when you could see the actual functioning of your mental aura, reaching out in the room, and actually controlling your own protection circuits’ ability, to project itself outside the brain/body__to acturally mentally and physically change other older family members aggression states to more civil dialogues, toward others or yourself…? I certainly do__as I remember using it quite often, at those most tender ages, of somewhere around 2 to 4, if my memory visions are correct. I knew I could project me’ lil’ ol’ brain outside me’ brain/body, and I wish I had that power now__but nature seems to evolve us away from those early self-protection circuits, though I have noticed some of its similar nature returning of late__since I’ve run into some strange reactions from other people, that just ain’t normal__and it’s becoming far too often, to be mere coincidence, imo. It’s nothing serious, but too many people have just been too abnormally friendly to me, of late__especially as to the 78 year old member in my philosophy group, asking me to personally be his teacher, and teach him all I know about Pragmatism__and he’s serious, as we’ve now talked for some ten hours total, and not because he’s maybe lonely, as his wife’s still alive, and they get along great__Just strange that he’d recognize something I’d said, he wished to know far more about, and a few others have been asking me more questions than normal, also... It seems a lot like the old ‘acid days’, when cashiers everywhere were regularly giving me change for 100 dollar bills, when I’d only given em a ten… Wish that would start happening again… :-)

All in all Tim, imo, this is a mobile model of em-frequency field multiplications, simply by the ‘EM-I-Self’ being mobile__thus multiplying self-processing em-field capacities into real intelligence, imo… And imo, it’s still best represented by this single paragraph of Peirce’s, I’ve posted many times:

“Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself," that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." C.S. Peirce

Tim imo, if you can just fully process this one paragraph, as to exactly what is meant__you will have fully understood the mobile model of all multiplied inter-acting field mechanics, within brains. It’s no more complex, than the full knowing states of this para… This is an em-frequency model of the brain’s inference mechanics, explained with fewer words than anyone else on Earth, I’ve ever come across…

And this graphic, by the living Russian__Lefebvre__shows the same in simple visual form...(Simply view em-fields as inter-acting between the 5 ovals, within the graphic, as relates to what I've written above, and also realize actual brain agent states have many more agents and a central processing agency, making use of the inter-actions of such multiplication of em-fields, all carrying information from the external world, and from memory, into our inference mechanics engine… If this level of mental investigation first puts you off, or scares you to steer clear, realize it's also scared many others away__even some of history's otherwise, most famous minds... I should also mention, each em-bio agent, has a real bio-physical location space, within the greater bio-em-perception space... This is all about the real action mechanics of physical objects, in real physical space, or the manifold of thought, and further, that each bio-em-agent represents one action of thought, at a time__as has been the history of logical semeiotics, for millennia... This is much like you're envisioning quantum mechanics' determinism of em-field mechanics passing through PSF points, but with the added twist of self-controllable dynamics of the em-fields within the intuition/perception thought manifold... My hypothesis is Tim, that muscles within the bio-intuitive/perception functioning mechanics of the brain, can and are actually self-controlled by us, to squeeze the PSF passage ways smaller and relax them larger__to control fundamental information flows of the em-carrying information photons, producing differing outcomes, we've learned to manipulate since birth__If this simple mechanical muscle process is multiplied by the number of possible existing agent fields inter-acting, the number of possible shapes of information becomes almost unlimited__It's simply producing a multiplycation of combinations of possibilities... Just my private model, though__meaning I'm the only one who's stated such, but it answers my personal investigations of how my intuitive/perception mechanics functions, when I just practice sizing items in my mind's eye, even as to simple triagles, circles and squares... I also practice on colored striped elephants, etc. and have questioned many others, to check my own results__They self-other-verify...)

(click to enlarge)

Clarification of Blackholes and Brains

Thanks for the compliment Lloyd. I often just mention subjects we've discussed in short as I try to trigger my path of logic in in your mind during our communications. This is why we sometimes get crossed as I sometimes see in your response that I didn't trigger the concepts I was shooting for. Most of the time I'm posting from my phone at work, thus I try to use a bit of shorthand in my analogies and such. Just so you know, these last posts aren't in support of free will or determinism, so we can let down the guards for a bit and get back to mere mechanics, which I enjoy more as we often find more agreeance in these areas. 

Now, make no mistake here, I fully see the complexity of thought vs the more simplified geo actions of blackholes. My point wasn't one of complexity, but I was going back to one of our earliest conversations about blackhole mechanics, and I'm also refering to the common understood aspects of the stellar production of a blackhole. Remember when I suggested that from the event horizon outward towards the unstructured regions of aethereal space, that the smooth spatial density transition was a spatial preservation of the many structured systems found at the most elementary resolutions, as it encompassed the full spectrum of motion as though being a snapshot thereof. I'm sure you remember what I'm refering too because it was one of the concepts which began our exchanges. 

The analogy I'm making here is that life has a similar spectrum per the evolutionary timeline with many of it's forms from the earliest to the youngest still being maintained at this day and time. From the initial environment of the oceans to the mountains I'm currently inhabiting, a spectrum of life is still currently in tact. Yes, the bio process of life with it's thinking brains is much more dynamic than the straitforward geo process which is the relationship of a blackhole with it's spatial environment, but it's still a similar recursive process of coevolving enviromental aspects of the unstructured EM field with it's wave mechanics and frequencies in conjunction with the structured matter waves and their frequencies. In an oversimplified statement, life begins when this connection is forged and death comes by way of the disconnection of these aspects. Im not trying to take away from the complexities of thought or life here, btw. 

As to the dynamics of the evolving brain and intelligence, there's the possibility of a dynamic due to the frequency reception of the brain that intelligence gaps within the animal kingdom is due to the frequency and wavelength at which such brains are sensative to the EM field in which they are in. Now this would be a highly complex subject, but I could think of some potential anaologies as with the processing power of a computer vs the frequency aspects of it's processor and such. Higher order ideas, associations and concepts along with ever larger logical connections have a processing aspect of timing or perhaps a governing frequency threshold which establishes an aspect of the complexity by which mental connections are made, thus also the degree of intelligence. I'm simply looking for connections between the bio/geo relationship at the brain/EM field interface. Such mechanics will always be more complex than I make them, but I cannot allow them to appear overly complex wihin my own mind whereby I get too intimidated to search for the connections which might actually be within my reach. 

I have to force myself to read and study things as I've always had the gift to absorb them once read or encountered which makes up for my lack of ambition to do heavy research. I still try to do my share as I know the importance of such, but I seldom have the time or energy to do very much. That was one of Dave's biggest shots at me when I first arrived as he often addressed my terminology and lack of academic study rather than addressing the information I was offering or discussing. I've often found many great minds have already covered things I'll be considering, but I just use that as encouragement that I can sometimes compete with some excellent minds. Had I pregathered such information I would have missed the opportunity to learn a lot more about myself and my own mind as I would merely have been studying the minds of others, but yes, I agree that to know when you've built a better wheel, you gotta know about the other wheels already invented just as you and Dave have pointed out. I feel I've had a good balance of knowledge gains by way of study vs my then current capacity for such as I studied and imagined through the years. Information gained at the right time will always be better grasped than if the mind wasn't already poised to recieve it. 

Thinking Brains Are Far Wiser Than Black-Holes__Since Black-Holes Dun Gut No Intelligence__Zero...

Glad to see we're leaning back towards the civil side again Lloyd.

Well Tim, you’ll probably have to tell me which way I’m leaning each time, as I usually don’t recognize it until someone tells me. Being from the old school, we’ve all just told each other when we are going too far in one way or another__That’s all…

Now, to answer your question of what my point was, you must keep your mind on the frequency aspects I discussed and perhaps perform a slight childlike disassociation for a moment as it helps me when thinking about this area. I'm of the opinion that much the incompleteness of evolutionary science is due to the acknowledgment of only one side of the equation ie the bio life form. Natural selection makes an attempt to acknowledge environmental aspects as with food supplies, predatorial aspects, etc, but evolution is more in tune to the mutation aspect of genes and such whereby species are born. I imagine these two distinctions of evolution and natural selection as being two opposite flows in a sense, whereby one has the ability to construct while the other merely works with that which is already constructed by way of evolution and seemingly deconstructs in a sense as with causing the extinction of genes, traits, species, etc.

Tim, you probably are not aware of the extensive history of the quite important old thinking information that exists, and can be re-read/re-interpreted as extensive compatibility with modern quantum mechanics’ functions. It’s just that many deep logicians, scientists and psychologists, even some theologians, wrote many tracts that one can easily see proto-quantum mechanical implications in, it’d scare you to realize just how modernly accurate many of these early brilliant minds truly were. These are just some of the ideas I’m talking about and relating to when I mention history’s important contributions to the modern sciences, Tim. Yes, it’s true many had no idea of the full depths of today’s quantum mechanics, but the conceptual thought and inference knowledge can just as easily be re-read as extremely compatible, from then to now. Just look at Pierre de Chardan’s ‘Noosphere’ book about the Earth as a complete living bio-organism, 75+ years ago…? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin or look at The ‘I Ching’ from China, 2500 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching To me, it’s quite amazing how accurate so many of our predecessors came to modernism’s scientific views, by their more crude scientific methods… Tim, if you were to go back and just read Brentano(really the founding father of modern psychology), a hundred years ago, you’d find a psychologist far wiser than most of today’s crop of physicists, biologists and other such scientists, of significant modern note… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Brentano Tim, I could list hundreds of these older significant master-minds of history, that are actually more important to modern science, physics and biology, etc., than are many of those getting and taking credit for what’s being offered today. Just a few examples…

The missing component of the evolutionary process is perhaps witnessed by applying the coevolutionary aspects seen with natural selection to a coevolutionary aspect of the mutation of species but not in the sense of other life forms and ecosystem aspects, but rather the direct relationship of the interface at which structured bio frequencies meet unstructured field frequencies. I'm hypothesizing that the very relationship of bio life forms submersed within the geo EM fields is the engine by which evolution is powered.

I noticed you didn’t mention the bio-life forms’ em-fields, which we know do exist inside the geo-fields__Is there some reason for that, Tim…?(every proton, electron, neutron and positron has its own field__no…?) We do take mri and other x-ray type pictures of these fields lighting up in the labs, now, no…? We scientifically know they are there__we just can’t yet fully separate enough noise for complete definition of which em-fields and frequencies are actually doing what__exactly__and that’s why epistemology’s conceptual inference symbol logic mechanics and semeiotics sign/symbol/icon logic is used to more clearly define what is truly happening… It takes all the sciences, to understand these processes, thoroughly__and I don’t see any other scientific method possible, Tim… Academics gets a lot of the science wrong, I admit, but there is a ‘core accuracy’ to the best-minded academics of the entire world__freely open to public investigation, in about all the world’s free nations…

Think recursively here for a minute Lloyd and consider all the many conversations we've had on the opposing forces of unstructured vs structured as pertains to synthesis, nova's, etc and especially black holes as we long ago discussed the spatial preservation of the motion spectrum as you observe from the less dense field states of the vacuum towards the center of the black hole.

I have to pick you up on what you state here about black-holes__Tim…? It seems you are thinking black-holes are empty of mass, and exist as em-field holes…? Is that what you are meaning…? Black-holes are neutron stars to me, with extremely high mass centers, and nothing but extremely powerful fields, out to the event horizons. They are far from empty to me, although the largest area ‘may be’ only the extremely powerful fields… You’d have to give me your understanding of black-holes, here Tim__because it seems far different than my knowledge of em… Now, micro-black-holes are another story__and they’re just too small and short lived for us to yet have any knowledge of(other than theory), but it is the main event the Hadron Collider is looking for, to complete the Higgs-Field Theory into possibly real mass producing matter from real em-fields… This area of black-hole theory’s confirmation is all future tense__yet though…

Within these geo interactions we find structure being shaped by field, which further effects the field, which further effects the structure, etc, often to the point of instability as with stellar nova's and such.

And also the instabilities of too many quantum fields present at one Planck point, as per your PSF graphics__This is very important as to brain capacity processes, at all bottlenecks of the brain’s bio-agents, and their associated necessary field mechanics, of the greater inference mechanics machine, as I relate it to all brain states, as a whole… It’s all one big machine Tim__but, it’s not only the geo-fields, that run into Planck scale bottlenecks, as per black-holes__the brain has plenty of its own bottlenecks, due to it being such a complex self-switching machine… If ya don’t think so, just try to process the money and market mechanics of every single one of Earth’s nations, inside the borders of a single nation, like all inside America at once. It took me just about a year’s practice with the many concepts, to fit em all into one concept mechanics__yet maintaining all foreign-exchange and independent currency mechanics functioning properly. I did it to just see if I could make global macro economics more easily self-understood__It Worked, and Works still… Just one of the toy models I perform, with me lil’ ol’ pea brain…

I simply see the various forms of life similar to the spatial preservation aspects of black holes, as I hypothesis that life takes the various forms it does by way of it's interactions within the medium which surrounds it.

That’s just far too over-simplified Tim, to accurately represent the far deeper complexity of bio-brains and bodies, having far more geo-made bio-agents and so many fields to deal with__while processing all agents at once__whereas a black-hole is just simple geo-atomic-field-mechanics. You can’t fully apply geo-atomic-field-mechanics to atomic-bio-field mechanics, having trillions of times the complexity, to a simple black-hole mechanics__It just ain’t logically possible__no more than it is to get all the money mechanics correct of the intergrated model I described, if one is not taught or self-taught the entire complex foreign-exchange contract and complete currency market history and its associated legal mechanics__then add in all the people’s psychology, for the juice. Tim, just one of the books on these complex markets took me over a year’s full time thinkings, to fully understand, and many market gurus still do not understand this same foreign-exchange markets’ full complexity__It’s the forward-exchange market I’m referring to… So, as to black-holes and minds__such mechanics is trillions of light years of logic apart… There’s just no possible way to understand mind mechanics, with black-hole mechanics__sorry… It just ain’t a gonna happen… There’s no thinker in black-holes__there’s an independent chooser and thinker in a bio-brain’s many em-bio-agents__fully produced by geo-fields and structures far more limited complexities__as compared to bio-field’s massive complexities… There’s a large gap in the knowledge differences necessities__between simple reflection/deflection actions__and ‘thinking’ about such simple reflections’/deflections’ inter-actions…

As the life forms increase in complexity, the surrounding spatial environment of the EM field is also further altered which through time alters aspects of the life form, etc. Only recently have we really began to alter the EM field at a larger scale as with the flood of structured radio waves, artificial lighting, etc, but the mere presence of the structured frequencies of living beings certainly effected the state of the medium as does the gravitational gathering of elements which build stars, planets, etc. Until we take into account the coevolving aspects of the relationship of bio and geo nature, then evolution will perhaps remain incomplete. This idea does little to explain the organizational aspects of inanimate to animate per the comlexity of the human body and such, but I hypothesize that many secrets of DNA and such are involved within these very aspects. In this sense, the evolution of the brain perhaps effected it's sensativity to the frequencies and such which currently engulf our thoughts or are our thoughts. Intelligence may have it's roots in the frequencies and complexities of the EM field which the intelligent mind can access. I'm still working on my thoughts in this area.

Tim, co-evolution is a given to me, and academics has covered this field for years__though I, sad to say, admit it’s quite dispersed throughout the many academic schools of thought__but, over the last few decades many scholars have recognized the need for intergration of the many scientific disciplines, and inter-disciplinary studies has now become some of the most important studies taking place, all around the globe__That’s one of the things our group accomplishes, and was the main goal I told David over 5 years ago, that I was about... We have PhD’s from many fields, mixed with other fields and common sense people, as well. This gives that inter-disciplinary advantage that was practiced millennia ago by the Greeks and a 1000 years later by the Persians, at “The House of Wisdom…” Ya know Tim, the most important thing to realize about knowledge acquisition, is to know what is already known, and what is not yet known__and that takes years of serious study, and the way you realize you’ve reached that pinnicle of research’s knowledge level, is everything new you read, see and hear becomes an almost complete repeat of what you’ve already read, seen and heard. Just as an example__that took me about 12 to 15 years of dedicated time, of steady research, note taking and writing on economics, alone… Then I returned to physics for mathematical foundations, and philosophy for logical foundations, so’s I could possibly make just a wee bit o’ sense to others…

I’m not trying to discourage you, Tim__but only trying to inform you of the effort it truly takes, to truly know what it takes, to truly know just a few subject areas of the world’s massive knowledge systems__well enough to be proficient at even any one field of study… Imo, there ain’t no short-cuts__like I used to think there were…

It’s a long slog__Ol’ Buddy… But, keep up the good work, as you’ve a mind that deserves the very best information possible… Just a hint from me__The thorough inference mechanics of the mind, is the most critical of skills in existence… Keep that childhood skill from un-learning itself, and you’ve already learned and held onto more importance of thought mechanics, than most on Earth will ever have the chance of knowing…

Best to ya,
Lloyd

"Logic Is The Symbol Relational Mechanics of Real Percepts’ and Concepts’ Inference Mechanics…"

The Incompleteness of Evolution

Glad to see we're leaning back towards the civil side again Lloyd. Now, to answer your question of what my point was, you must keep your mind on the frequency aspects I discussed and perhaps perform a slight childlike disassociation for a moment as it helps me when thinking about this area. I'm of the opinion that much the incompleteness of evolutionary science is due to the acknowledgment of only one side of the equation ie the bio life form. Natural selection makes an attempt to acknowledge environmental aspects as with food supplies, predatorial aspects, etc, but evolution is more in tune to the mutation aspect of genes and such whereby species are born. I imagine these two distinctions of evolution and natural selection as being two opposite flows in a sense, whereby one has the ability to construct while the other merely works with that which is already constructed by way of evolution and seemingly deconstructs in a sense as with causing the extinction of genes, traits, species, etc. 

The missing component of the evolutionary process is perhaps witnessed by applying the coevolutionary aspects seen with natural selection to a coevolutionary aspect of the mutation of species but not in the sense of other life forms and ecosystem aspects, but rather the direct relationship of the interface at which structured bio frequencies meet unstructured field frequencies. I'm hypothesizing that the very relationship of bio life forms submersed within the geo EM fields is the engine by which evolution is powered. 

Think recursively here for a minute Lloyd and consider all the many conversations we've had on the opposing forces of unstructured vs structured as pertains to synthesis, nova's, etc and especially black holes as we long ago discussed the spatial preservation of the motion spectrum as you observe from the less dense field states of the vacuum towards the center of the black hole. Within these geo interactions we find structure being shaped by field, which further effects the field, which further effects the structure, etc, often to the point of instability as with stellar nova's and such. 

I simply see the various forms of life similar to the spatial preservation aspects of black holes, as I hypothesis that life takes the various forms it does by way of it's interactions within the medium which surrounds it. As the life forms increase in complexity, the surrounding spatial environment of the EM field is also further altered which through time alters aspects of the life form, etc. Only recently have we really began to alter the EM field at a larger scale as with the flood of structured radio waves, artificial lighting, etc, but the mere presence of the structured frequencies of living beings certainly effected the state of the medium as does the gravitational gathering of elements which build stars, planets, etc. Until we take into account the coevolving aspects of the relationship of bio and geo nature, then evolution will perhaps remain incomplete. This idea does little to explain the organizational aspects of inanimate to animate per the comlexity of the human body and such, but I hypothesize that many secrets of DNA and such are involved within these very aspects. In this sense, the evolution of the brain perhaps effected it's sensativity to the frequencies and such which currently engulf our thoughts or are our thoughts. Intelligence may have it's roots in the frequencies and complexities of the EM field which the intelligent mind can access. I'm still working on my thoughts in this area. 

Answers To Clarifications…

(Every time I try to write a short answer to you, look what happens…)

Hi Tim, and thanks for putting up with my bad spells, every so often. Let me put this a bit more explanatorily, as to my thought processes. I just wrote a paragraph, and immediately ran off the rails, and had to delete, so let me just throw out these axioms, etc., of what I see determinism and free-will to represent, to me__as logically as possible…

1. Strong Determinism is a complete self-contradiction of its own self-necessity and self-consistencies__It uses the language mechanics of free-will choices, to attempt proofs against free-will, i.e., tis counterfactual, question begging, or the snake swallowing its own tail, or/and the conclusion is deriving far more from the statement mechanics’ premise/s than is present, to possibly deduct from it/them, i.e., tis a false deduction logic…

2. Strong Determinism is an infinite regress to a logical impossibility__It bases its arguments on cause and effect, yet when its cause and effect is chased to its true deductive foundations in absolute fundamental motion mechanics, there’s absolutely no fundamental prime mover mechanics known, to found such fallacious circular logic on, therefore__tis a pretentious logic, and impossible of absolutely true groundings…

3. Free-will is a perfect Q.M. engine__It’s indiscernible as to absolute foundation, except as to its general motion and simple choices, through highly possible frequency mechanics__Its foundation is indeterminism, randomness and/or uncertainty, etc., at base__We simply don’t yet know how it fully mechanically works, but are absolutely certain it works, as intuitive choice is a fact of human decision and judgment function, and also creativity__which can not be disproved, except by determinism's illogical feeble attempts by using this same free-will intuitive choice function, which certainly is no proof, but is its logical opposite, and such counterfactuals are dis-allowed in logic… A never equals not A…

4. Strong Determinism can never be intelligent, as it falsely attempts to eliminate the intelligence of its own necessary free-will choices, to be intelligent__and such attempts are highly offensive to all sound intelligence, without the determinist even recognizing the offensiveness of his statements, being identical to calling intelligent free-will’ers__highly stupid, especially when the sound logical proofs are on the free-will’ers side__Not the side of the determinists’ illusions and delusions of false scientific grandeur…

5. The Necessary Free-Will, to Be Subjectively and Objectively Intelligent, Exists__and oppositely__To advocate strong or absolute determinism, is to (unknowingly-implyingly) call everyone else who doesn’t agree__Stupid…! Strong determinism produces all its own logical self-contradictions__from its negative infinite regresses to nothing but pure ego, since its own logic kicks its own legs out from under it__Splat…!!!

Hope that’s offensive enough to make my points about the offensiveness of ‘Strong Determinism...’ Sorry Tim, but a man’s gotta stand up for being a man… :-)

I'm not suggesting that naming and catagorizing have no purpose, and as I stated, this is a difficult area to express properly. All I'm saying is to take advantage of both aspects, the associations and such brought about by way of the scientific methodology and the amazement and wonder of a child brought about by allowing ones mind to be unfamiliar with aspects of those things which we have associated by way of science. It just stimulates my own mind to look deeper into aspects of nature by doing this. This is part of my interpretation of the logical processes possessed by children which look deeper into things as you suggested earlier, as I see it as a path to reestablish such child like connections. We potentially learn more in the first few years of our life than in all the rest. I'm just suggesting a reason for this, which you are welcome to dispute.

No dispute here Tim__I agree completely with this paragraph, and might only further add that I call it my intuitive childhood mind, which simply has the innocent ability to sit atop and between all ideas, and simply observe__Where we later as adults take up opinions and positions of choosing sides of the many global cultural arguments and debates__preferebly logically__but I fully agree on the extreme importance of staying in tune with this childhood natural innate intuitiveness, as pure innocent observer, as I’ve written on it often… I’ve also called it the mean position between two extremes(as did the Pythagorean Greeks__The Golden Mean…), as was depicted in my first post’s graphic, at my TQ thread on ‘False and True Philosophical Utopias…’

From my understanding of natural selection Lloyd, I don't see how one can deny it at the bio evolutionary scale (not speaking of QM here). If the same species of cow came in several colors and we prefered not to eat one certain color while eating the rest and we did nothing to try and breed the other colors for sustaining our preference, then as the population dwindled due to our dining habits, the untouched color cow might find opportunities to breed more often whereby it's color gene might thrive while the other colors died off. It's actuall a cornerstone to evolutionary aspects. Certain individuals within a species might have had random traits which benifited them over others within the species due to food supplies and such, whereby they ate, thrived and reproduced while others without such genetic traits died off, thus such a trait would become dominant through time. Anxiety attacks within humans is often attributed to the instinct to flee passed down from our ancestors, whereby due to ancient predators, survival favored those who treated every sound as potential doom and fled vs the more brave who often got eaten due to treating such sounds as harmless. The environment and ecosystem of a species can favor varying aspects of individuals within a species. Nothing bizarre or unscientific here in my views, only a dynamic of nature. Many animals fur could potentially cause them to go extinct due to our love of fancy clothing. This would be a natural selection which contributed to the extinction of an entire species and not just an individual trait within a species. As I stated, I'm only speaking on the bio level here and not QM.

My only point here Tim, is that there are no__or at least far fewer than needed for soundness__quantum mechanical links to such NS scientific theorizing, which imo, would be required to link NS to the scientific reality biology is claiming for it__but, when we go deep into the bio-RNAi/DNA structures, at the QM bio-chemistry levels__the information is far from being a completed science. Incompleteness does not produce as completed a science as they are claiming, except the science of known incompleteness__as relates to NS, imo… I’ve studied this area for years Tim, and I do not find the scientific evidence some are claiming__their literature is far exceeding what’s truly logically known about it. To me, the Russian biologists have always been far in in lead here, as many of them respected our own Barbara McClintock’s work in fundamental RNAi(on/off information switching mechanisms) research__which the male scientific community of America and Europe have both been slow to take up__It’s called Epi-Genetics, the deeper biological-physics and chemistry studies of non-NS bio-physics… I see far more evidence from the epi-geneticists than from the simple non-epi-geneticists__and this branch of biology all goes back to Barbara McClintock__as opposed to the outdated Crick and Watson gang of thieves, of Rosalind Franklin’s work…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

Sorry Lloyd, let me be more specific here. The language of the universe or method of operation is frequency based IMHO. Just as various frequencies of light are absorbed or emitted by atomic structures, and being as I see no occurence of field state or structure which isn't frequency based, then I would infer that such frequency mechanics are a critical aspect of understanding all interactions within the universe. This takes my thoughts to the Characteristica universalis conversations along with the binary aspects we discussed. I see such frequency mechanics as the underlying interface of the various states of FS whether structured or unstructured. The interface at which the brain and body are engulfed within the EM field with it's various frequency ranges is a point of convergence of various frequencies of structured and unstructured FS whereby I am exploring the concept and implications of these very dynamics concerning our current discussions as with the relationship of frequencies per interaction dynamics. Is that scientific enough for you, as I can only relate this as a concept, but I'm trying to consider the implications of other absorption emission aspects which are already understood per bio processes and mental processing.

And all I’m stating as to these same frequency mechanics, Tim, is the fact that our free-will agent, in our lil’ ol’ pea brains, is no more than the actions of this bio-physical agent’s micro-field’s em-frequency mechanics, being purely free-will choice manipulated by one or more of our lil’ ol’ pea brain’s other bio-physical agent’s micro-field’s em-frequency mechanics__by nothing more than nature’s and our own inferences’ em-frequency micro-field inter-actions__sometimes enacted by one of nature’s natural inferences through any one of our five senses, or by our own choice of em-frequency-free-will percept/concept choosings, any one of the many em-frequency percepts or concepts, directly or indirectly, represented to our cognitive perception’s em-bio-field-processing-agency, for further em-frequency-field judgments, of finally em-frequency-field seeing/knowing the em-frequency actions involved, as the end product fully self-free-will-processed final end-states. Yes Tim, it’s nothing but em-frequency mechanics of that ancient ol’ inference mechanics__that’s been around since the Gita and the Vedas, or many other ancient sanskrit or cuneiform texts, etc… And this is my foundation of all the foolishness of mis-interpretations__that logic has known and worked with, for millennia__Nothing complicated, just simple em-conceptual mechanics, imo… It’s just the fact that when bio-fields are processing other bio-fields, within our lil’ ol’ pea brains__the entire inter-acting mechanics can become a bit complicated and confusing to explanation__unless one thoroughly understands the epistemological semeiotics symbol mechanics, that logic has used for mellinea to technically explain it fully. You don’t need to go there, Tim, as it can be quite confusing, at first__as your own concept mechanics is sufficient to generally understand this more complex em-frequency field mechanics of our semeiotic thought inferences… I myself prefer the semeiotic language to be interpreted as the far less complex inference and concept mechanics__but my point would still be, it is very complex, to describe the em-mechanical actions of a few bio-agents’ fields, let alone the twenty-five or so actual innate bio-physical brain agents, all inter-acting at once__and for that reason alone, the ancients invented semeiotic sign logic, represented by symbol logics__but general understandings are far easier understood, by the inference and concept mechanics we both far more easily understand__as a possible dialogue of these complexities__though I do use the complex systems for my own deep interpretations of FOPL, (or first order predicate logic), which is also most likely beyond your educational level, but is far simpler a logic than the higher order logics of 2nd order, and higher__which I don’t use either, as that’s the areas Godel showed to always necessitate incompletenesses, and Tarski later showed common English to exhibit the same problems__Therefore I stay with the far more sound first order logics__if any of this is any help to you, as when I first started studying the many logics, I found a list of 137 different logics, in nine different categories, and it weren’t easy rapping me lil’ ol’ pea brain around all that complexity, but logic’s always been my choice of dearest study, as imo, no science can be understood without logic__and the math and real world evidential experiments’ correspondences, to keep the logic honest…

That's just a smartass comment from where I stand Lloyd. I work hard to not come off as arrogant or imply that I know more than anyone else, and I don't insist that what I see within my mind is how it must be

Yeah Tim, I wasn’t trying to come off arrogant or smartass, or impress necessity upon your mind, but I realize when I’m irritated by my research’s outer world affairs__I do come off as an ars’ at times__but I also do think there is a true mechanics of how the brain actually does process information__and I’m not relaying my brain’s information content__I’m simply offering what historically logically accurate information mechanics, I’ve gathered and agree with__that is in thorough agreement with so many of history’s logicians, mathematicians and other sound scientists__I can not ignore such truth connections__and this is coming from an extreme skeptic, me… So, take it, or leave it, for what it’s worth, or not worth__It matters not to me__as these factual scientific logical histories have existed since the dawn of time__been taught, been ignored, been lied about, been stomped on, shit on, resurrected, and resurrected hundreds of times over through the millennia__and if logical truth of the full scientific understandings and methods ever makes it to the roof of the world, it’ll surprise me, as much as you… I don’t state what the mind needs to think, I state how the mind’s mechanics needs to work, to function most logically, scientifically and mathematically truthfully. If I make mistakes of the logic, science or mathematical truths and mechanics of__I’ll gladly accept my faults and correct, where needs be. I have no problem with being human and wrong, which needs correcting, Tim__but, I do stand my ground as to what I do know to be historically sound logical thinking, and I do criticize harshly, what I do know to be unsound thinking__It’s that simple… Though I certainly do not mean to offend, I also do not think I have the capacity, nor do I think you have the capacity to not offend__even though neither of us may intend to… That’s just the way it is, and is exactly why the world has all these, at variance, ideas… People fight for what they believe, whether they believe it or not__just because certain intellectual statements offend their sensibilities, and fight they do__that’s the way it is__No…??? I’m just one of those who doesn’t go outta’ my way, to be an overly nice guy about it… Just the way I am Tim, and you know it…

You misinterpretted me here Lloyd. If we consider evolution to be relevant whereby humans with thinking brains evolved from lesser species which had not the ability to process which we do, then such a processing ability was brought about through time and has reached it's pinnacle with us. I'm not speaking of passed on knowledge as though knowing things at birth, but rather that we possess a genetic predisposition to a more evolved thought process.

Yeah, I guess I can see what your point about my mis-interpreting you was, but what’s your point…? You can’t set ‘Evolution’ up as a ‘God’ and say evolution did it__That’s not a logical statement. It’s a mere observational statement of the given facts of existence. I just don’t see the use of such statements, that are not explaining some scientific mechanic of the facts being stated. Fine, yes we’ve evolved from extremophiles to humans__that’s a factual given, to me, thus no information__The information would be ‘How’__what is the exact quantum mechanical facts of the logical scientific path from extremophile to human…?__and we lack that scientific information, except a few piece-meal connections, but when I ask for the explicit and exact physical proof, of say from inanimate to animate functions, or the exact explicit physical facts of RNAi/DNA evolution__It’s almost completely lacking__except as some general assumptions of circumstantial evidence of NS__I don’t buy it. I want the total QM-Path Mechanics. There’s more absolute science lacking in evolution and NS, than there is in Logical Semeiotics, therefore I study science from the premise of where I find the most accurate and complete science available__The science of brain/mind mechanics is far more known than the science of both or either evolution or NS, as far as my studies have found__where quantum mechanics is clearly needed for full understandings__Therefore, I prefer to study the science of brain/mind mechanics to understand QM deeper than the many dead-ends of present QM studies, in other areas__That’s all, Tim…

That's enough answers for now Lloyd. I'd rather try to evaluate your position for a while rather than explaining mine. I'll go back through the last few posts to try to find your logic path as Im beginning to see some aspects of where our ideas part ways. I think we need to take this back to the fundamental levels so if you have any further explaination of your position, I'm all ears cause I'm gonna have to get into your total mechanics to be of any help here as debating from mine will not work. I must understand yours and debate from there if I find that I still disagree once we are relating to the same mental pool of information and are aligned in the connections which are further building connections within our logic.

Not to make this any longer, I’ll end here also Tim… I’m actually far less complex than I sound, though__to me anyway… But then again, I’m a ‘piss-poor’ judge of me…

Clarifications

"Btw Tim, I think I’ll be keeping my categories and names. Others have already tried convincing me names and naming got in the way of knowing__I completely dis-agree__but I do wonder why people wish to go such a non-scientific route, especially when discussing science."


I'm not suggesting that naming and catagorizing have no purpose, and as I stated, this is a difficult area to express properly. All I'm saying is to take advantage of both aspects, the associations and such brought about by way of the scientific methodology and the amazement and wonder of a child brought about by allowing ones mind to be unfamiliar with aspects of those things which we have associated by way of science. It just stimulates my own mind to look deeper into aspects of nature by doing this. This is part of my interpretation of the logical processes possessed by children which look deeper into things as you suggested earlier, as I see it as a path to reestablish such child like connections. We potentially learn more in the first few years of our life than in all the rest. I'm just suggesting a reason for this, which you are welcome to dispute.



"Such mechanics would effect the Universe’s real state mechanics existence__Not one bit of a difference in function, than it now functions__and such independent systems’ functions, would pushe a lot of the bogus non-free-will functions__away, out of the needless considerations’ conflicts… And, all the evolutionary NS pre-suppositions mean nothing, because there’s no actual exact fundamental path proofs of such actions__though many believers do believe in evolution’s natural selection__I do not. I often asked different evolutionists to prove to me just what is being selected by exactly what__and they simply can’t, as there is no clear evidence of such natural selection science, different from natural chance actions__so as to science__I stay completely away from NS… I do not find any NS in QM, and further__I’ve never seen QM try to defend such thinking, except on TQ__which I never agreed with, as you know, if you followed my responses to Greg__Bio-Evolution, yes__but I was always a No, to NS…"


From my understanding of natural selection Lloyd, I don't see how one can deny it at the bio evolutionary scale (not speaking of QM here). If the same species of cow came in several colors and we prefered not to eat one certain color while eating the rest and we did nothing to try and breed the other colors for sustaining our preference, then as the population dwindled due to our dining habits, the untouched color cow might find opportunities to breed more often whereby it's color gene might thrive while the other colors died off. It's actuall a cornerstone to evolutionary aspects. Certain individuals within a species might have had random traits which benifited them over others within the species due to food supplies and such, whereby they ate, thrived and reproduced while others without such genetic traits died off, thus such a trait would become dominant through time. Anxiety attacks within humans is often attributed to the instinct to flee passed down from our ancestors, whereby due to ancient predators, survival favored those who treated every sound as potential doom and fled vs the more brave who often got eaten due to treating such sounds as harmless. The environment and ecosystem of a species can favor varying aspects of individuals within a species. Nothing bizarre or unscientific here in my views, only a dynamic of nature. Many animals fur could potentially cause them to go extinct due to our love of fancy clothing. This would be a natural selection which contributed to the extinction of an entire species and not just an individual trait within a species. As I stated, I'm only speaking on the bio level here and not QM.



"As to arguing or debating, I don’t see any difference, as this area is going to cause so much heated differences__I just don’t think there’s any way to avoid conflict__But, I think it’s important enough to be toughed out__No…?"


One is more civil than the other. You be the judge on which is which. Lol

"Tim please, if you want to speak that simply of free-will, you’ll have to talk psychologically, and never touch a scientific method, and I don’t for a minute think you wish to talk psychology instead of physics__but such statement would require the looseness of psychology, or other such softr social sciences, to handle such dialogue… Thought is much more complex than the picture you’ve just attempted to splash-paint…"


Sorry Lloyd, let me be more specific here. The language of the universe or method of operation is frequency based IMHO. Just as various frequencies of light are absorbed or emitted by atomic structures, and being as I see no occurence of field state or structure which isn't frequency based, then I would infer that such frequency mechanics are a critical aspect of understanding all interactions within the universe. This takes my thoughts to the Characteristica universalis conversations along with the binary aspects we discussed. I see such frequency mechanics as the underlying interface of the various states of FS whether structured or unstructured. The interface at which the brain and body are engulfed within the EM field with it's various frequency ranges is a point of convergence of various frequencies of structured and unstructured FS whereby I am exploring the concept and implications of these very dynamics concerning our current discussions as with the relationship of frequencies per interaction dynamics. Is that scientific enough for you, as I can only relate this as a concept, but I'm trying to consider the implications of other absorption emission aspects which are already understood per bio processes and mental processing.



"And what difference does it make how you’d rather see em, as pertains to anything being scientifically assessed/analyzed…?"


That's just a smartass comment from where I stand Lloyd. I work hard to not come off as arrogant or imply that I know more than anyone else, and I don't insist that what I see within my mind is how it must be. I'm only offering information as I see it here. If it benifits you then use it. If not, discard it and let's discuss other options.



"Well, you can believe that__I sure as hell ain’t gonna… I am of the opinion we start fresh every birth from a blank slate brain__and only the inference mechanics from birth on, builds our usable knowledge systems. Yes, we learn by the advantage of having access to the past’s thousands of years of stored historical library knowledge__but I accept absolutely zero innate knowledge being present, before live birth, and science has absolutely no gene-evidence to contradict this information__mainly because it’s bs, if you but thoroughly research your own inference mechanics necessities of total processings and its associated memory storage mechanics, etc… It ain’t no magic involved__just simple em-frequency mechanics paths you actually see happening, if you but look inside… It’s a most visible mechanics, late at night, just before going to sleep, and early in the morning, upon freshly awakening to a new day… The inference mechanics itself never changes__only its content changes, and free-will changes the stored content, and sometimes the actively entering actions, etc…"


You misinterpretted me here Lloyd. If we consider evolution to be relevant whereby humans with thinking brains evolved from lesser species which had not the ability to process which we do, then such a processing ability was brought about through time and has reached it's pinnacle with us. I'm not speaking of passed on knowledge as though knowing things at birth, but rather that we possess a genetic predisposition to a more evolved thought process.

That's enough answers for now Lloyd. I'd rather try to evaluate your position for a while rather than explaining mine. I'll go back through the last few posts to try to find your logic path as Im beginning to see some aspects of where our ideas part ways. I think we need to take this back to the fundamental levels so if you have any further explaination of your position, I'm all ears cause I'm gonna have to get into your total mechanics to be of any help here as debating from mine will not work. I must understand yours and debate from there if I find that I still disagree once we are relating to the same mental pool of information and are aligned in the connections which are further building connections within our logic.

Free Will vs Determinism ...

"Since actions and performances are not wholly in our power and since nothing is really in our power but our will - it is on the will that all the rules and duties of Man are based and established." (Michel de Montaigne, 1572)

Free Will vs Determinism

The question of free will vs determinism has been one of the most intensely fought battles in theology and philosophy since the days of the earliest Greek philosophers. There is little doubt that humans have a perception of choice in our daily lives. We believe we make choices; that we are not mere puppets of either the gods nor the blind forces of the universe.

But do we?

It is important to define to some extent what we are talking about. The question is one between absolute determinism on one side, and the absense of determinism on the other. Thus, for this debate, I will use the term "free will" to mean that there exist situations in life where we make genuine, unforced choices, and that when we choose A, we could, even circumstances being similar, also have chosen B.

Free will does not mean without influence, coersion and pressure from the environment. Hopefully, there are more or less rational reasons why we chose A over B, and among these there may be influence from society, upbringing or knowledge that the choice B would have undesired consequences.

A brief history of the debate about free will

While humans like to believe we do make genuine choices, it has indeed been hard to justify this belief rationally, for both theological and scientific reasons. Thus, it will not be an exaggaration to say that the majority of influental philosophers and theologists in the past have argued that free will does not exist.

For theologists, free will have been argued to interfere with the omnipotence of God. In one of the oldest (and longest) debates in Christian thought history, Augustine strongly rebuffed Pelagius when the latter argued that human beings can themselves approach salvation through personal choice. Pelagianism and later semi-Pelagianism were both condemned in the Roman Catholic Church. It still lived on, however.

In the 16th century, the debate flared up again, when the philosopher Erasmus attacked Luther for his belief that the human will was totally bound, and that only God has any influence on a person's salvation. Luther condemned Erasmus for being worse than Pelagius.

While Calvin is the one most known for being a proponent of absolute determinism, Luther was indeed the same. But in Lutheran circles, many have been uneasy about this position, which is no doubt the reason Erasmus chose it as an avenue of attack.

This is the theological background for the philosophical debate about determinism vs free will.

Science, also, grew out of theology, at least in one sense. If God had created the universe, it was argued, the universe would have to follow universal laws, since God is not a god of disorder. Philosophers and scientists in the Enlightment set out to find these Divine laws. This is the historical reason why the general systematic principles that guides the universe, as described by science, is still called laws, even though laws otherwise are normative, while natural laws are descriptive. You can break a law of society (and face consequences), but you simply cannot break a law of nature. That is a distinction we will get back to.

A strictly ordered universe poses serious logical problems for a belief in a free will.

The one best known for formulating what had been understood as the death blow to the concept of free will is the 19th century scientist Pierre Simon Laplace. He proposed that if there existed a mind that knew, to the minutes detail, everything about every particle in the universe at any given point, then that mind would also be able to predict, with absolute accuracy, what would happen in the future. Given the knowledge of all that is, we would know all that could ever be. It thus follows that the entire course of the universe was laid out at its inception. There is, in this, no room for a free will.

Unwary free will proponents may try to launch the following counter-attacks on this position.

1) A monotheist, who would be forced to believe there indeed exists such an all-knowing mind, could argue that as long as God did not consciously decide to fully "calculate" the outcome of reality, its inhabitants still had a measure of free will.

2) A non-theist could argue that such a mind did not exist, thus making the whole gedankenexperiment futile. Thus, humans could still possess a free will since such a calculation was infeasible, if not theoretically impossible.

These arguments are both flawed for the exact same reason. Whether the calculation is actually done is irrelevant. If it is even theoretically possible to know in advance what you will do tomorrow, then you have no free will. If I have a note in my pocket saying that you will have cereal for breakfast tomorrow morning, and this note is 100% reliable, the fact that I chose not to look at it still means you cannot chose to have any different breakfast the next morning.

These arguments were understood by most philosophers and intellectuals, thus seemingly dooming humans to simply live under an illusation of having free will. The whole existence is a theatre. Even though we actually feel we make choices, this is an illusion. When you choose A, be it such a trivial thing as what to eat for breakfast or a more life-altering decision, there really was no possibility, the universe being exactly as it was at the time, for you to act differently.

These (apparent) facts really have stunning implications for ethics. We punish lawbreakers at least partially as a deterrant against crime. However, if there is no free will, then a murderer or rapist really had no choice whether to commit the crime or not. Moral culpability is only meaningful if there is a possibility for choice. In fact, the whole of human society, including the legal system, is built on the implicit assumption of free will and the possibility to make moral choices.

A philospher who is a determinist will have to find him- or herself living a total paradox to argue it is in any way meaningful to strive for a better life, to avoid accidents, to punish wrongdoers for their crimes, and indeed at all behave like there is anything to gain from making any initiative for action.

To this, the determinist will just have to say that when he makes an (apparent) decision, wants to punish criminals, etc, this is also a result of the predetermined makeup of the universe. Logically consistent, perhaps, but most will find this fatalistic system deeply disturbing, if not emotionally destructive.

Thus, we find that logically, free will seems impossible to reconcile with the order of the universe. A mechanical universe has no room for actual choice.

On the other hand, we find that the consequences of actually believing in determinism are so absurd that people have to pretend that they actually have a measure of free will to function in society. While not strictly a fully valid reductio ad absurdum against determinism, certainly it is a powerful argument.

The surprising - at the time - solution is that the idea of the deterministic universe is probably wrong.

This conclusion came out of the physicist Heisenberg's work with quantum mechanics. In 1927 he published what has become known as the "uncertainty paper," in which he described his work with trying to determine the position and the momentum of a particle simultanously, and concluded:

"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."
Contrary to what many argued, this was not due to any fault from the observer. Simplified, we can say that this imprecision is due to an actual fuzziness in the fabric universe itself, at the quantum level.

It actually follows from quantum mechanics, solidly confirmed by experiments, that on the quantum level, the universe is not at all deterministic. Events happen according to a statistical distribution that comes out of quantum equations. Given an elementary particle, if it can go zing or zong, it is actually inheritably impossible to determine with certainty which it will do either, only the statistical probabilities.

While Einstein, and even some contemporary physicists, argue that there must be an actual underlying deterministic system to quantum mechanics, this system has never been found, and little evidence available now suggests it ever will.


Conclusion: Affirming a Free Will

It will be a gross exaggaration to say that free will follows as a result of the equations of quantum mechanics, but it remains a fact that it does away with a deterministic universe. The actual state of the universe at any time is absolutely unknowable, even theoretically, and thus its course cannot be accurately determined or known in advance. You can still have your breakfast of choice tomorrow morning.

The deterministic argument against free will can also be refuted at another level. It can be argued that saying that strict, unchanging and unbreakable natural laws prevents the exercise of free choice.

However, this argument stems from a misunderstanding of what a natural law is, as we mentioned initially. The law is merely an inductive generalisation of the past, and the argument that since this is how the universe has behaved up to now, it will continue doing so. It is not a normative law created for the universe to follow; that would be putting the cart in front of the horse. Thus, the events that are described in natural laws, are not different from the events that you initiate and the actions you do. It is a subtle misunderstanding to say that the laws of nature really constrains your choices. On the contrary, they simply describe what happens, and that includes every action you make. Every time you make a choice and act on it, you create another tiny subset of a universal "law of nature". To even talk about "breaking" the laws of nature is absurd; these laws describe everything that takes place in the universe, including what you do.

Thus, the weight of the evidence suggests that the human free will is not an illusion, but that we really are able to make choices. There are situations in life where we can genuinly choose between either A or B. We have a free will.

Free-Will and The Conservation Laws, Within Conservation Laws, Within Still More Conservation Laws__And All Conserved At Once…

Btw Tim, I think I’ll be keeping my categories and names. Others have already tried convincing me names and naming got in the way of knowing__I completely dis-agree__but I do wonder why people wish to go such a non-scientific route, especially when discussing science. Remember Tim, science is always about “Sound Scientific Methodology”, as you clearly stated in your own TQ posts__and imo, that absolutely requires hypotheses, names, naming, category and model systems__and only then can we debate the merits of each… Realize, I tried to get you to state a goal, a while ago, and you didn’t want to__and unless you do, I’m bound to be flying around without much control of this airplane, which sometimes turns into a rocket, and burns both our ‘arses’__so this is another post you most likely won’t like__but, if you bear down and state a goal to more easily process, we may be able to get past our differences…

Tim, everywhere we measure the systems constituent actions, the conservation laws apply__but, there’s absolutely nothing in the science to state there are not conservation laws, within other same acting conservation laws, acting on/in/within still others. To me, scientists and overly strict logicians have mis-interpreted a multi-functioning quantum system into a ‘oneness-fixed-god-state’ of overly-equilibriated conservation laws__and far overly applied such possibly false logics. Take just the photon, which exists everywhere at exactly the same time__and all the laws of conservation of energy and mass/matter apply__no matter what individual system. To me, far too many scientists and logicians have forgot many varied and varying value and action systems can be, and do function within the greater aspects of itself__and herein lies the greatest problem of over-applying a pseudo-oneness action to the Universal laws of conservation, to the World and Universe__as you seem to be trying to also overly apply them. Yes, we can generally apply the #1st law of conservation to the entire Universe, or #2 and #3 as well__But, that in no way means it creates some sort of Universal God-Oneness Locked-In-Set-Step Motion across the entire Universe__That would be just plain foolish, and much as many in my group argued in high school, until we actually analyzed the entire World and Universe’s many independent functions. Tim, the World and Universe quite normally functions independently within the conservation laws, without breaking any conservation laws__whether free-will, or the free and independent actions of star systems and black-holes, etc. Where did you ever get this bogus idea__All had to be locked together in complete unison, for the laws of conservation to function properly…??? You couldn’t throw a rock across the yard, if that were true, and as I’ve tried unsuccessfully to point out__Independent systems started out as distant independent systems, and inter-mixed their same motion state dynamics, to form into the most uniform system we experience today__Imo, that’s the randomness David was always referring to… To me, you are just fighting for a single Oneness God-System, that just plain don’t exist. Did you ever consider, the conservation motions just may exist in each individual photon__all by each individual photon’s lonesome existence? Such mechanics would effect the Universe’s real state mechanics existence__Not one bit of a difference in function, than it now functions__and such independent systems’ functions, would pushe a lot of the bogus non-free-will functions__away, out of the needless considerations’ conflicts… And, all the evolutionary NS pre-suppositions mean nothing, because there’s no actual exact fundamental path proofs of such actions__though many believers do believe in evolution’s natural selection__I do not. I often asked different evolutionists to prove to me just what is being selected by exactly what__and they simply can’t, as there is no clear evidence of such natural selection science, different from natural chance actions__so as to science__I stay completely away from NS… I do not find any NS in QM, and further__I’ve never seen QM try to defend such thinking, except on TQ__which I never agreed with, as you know, if you followed my responses to Greg__Bio-Evolution, yes__but I was always a No, to NS…
As to arguing or debating, I don’t see any difference, as this area is going to cause so much heated differences__I just don’t think there’s any way to avoid conflict__But, I think it’s important enough to be toughed out__No…?

We are dealing with a fluid like FS Lloyd, thus all points are connected, even if by distances which disallow the ability to be seemingly causal wihin temporal intervals.

I truly wish I could agree with you here Tim, but I can’t__and it’s not because I dis-agree with such possibilities__it’s simply because it destroys the other possible necessary mechanics of total Universal functions, of a workable wave-particle system, imo. Just think about it__how do we have a fluid with parts, and yet it’s an entirely all separable points connected fluid…? This is only possible if it’s an extended and entangled field of wave-particles__which exist from independent sources of the fundamental field’s total light cone, which merged over eons of cosmological time__where such motions would produce the many conserved motions we do know presently exist__as I see no way to break the Oneness-Spell, that hoards scientists and logicians into false submissions to its false-god of pseudo-oneness. All I see in that first sentence above, Tim, is a pure conjecture__which your logic and evidence is incapable of supporting, imo__and I’m not being a smart-ass__The evidence just isn’t there… Tim, I just do not look at conservation laws operating on our universe__As I’ve stated before__The Universe’s real motions produce us bio-beings which interpret the raw motions of FS into the conservation laws we have discovered__so that leaves the fundamental motions in limbo__Until you are willing to fully investigate the Universe’s real fundamental re-cycling motions, imo__which is entirely possible with decay mechanics’ numbers. If not, we can’t go any further Tim, as the conservation laws I do accept functioning properly__but not for the reasons you are stating. To me, it’s a far deeper puzzle than A Simple Law Action of Oneness’ Connectedness__To me, it’s about How The Independencies Inter-Act, from the FS-Motion Field__Up or Down, however you want it… But, without fundamental field-motion inter-actions first explained__we have no foundation to state how the fundamental Planck scales actually must behave__we simply have ungrounded motions… It just seems as though I can’t get you to go deep enough into the most fundamental mechanics, and yes I do accept what we’ve discussed in the past, as to all the Va = Vr + Vu etc., but not the actions of inter-connected oneness you seem to be now demanding of your personal form of strong determinism__just as I’m demanding independencies__as foundations__Simply due to c and its distance-time necessities of physical motion’s actions… I can’t see why you can’t see, that these independencies are absolutely necessary, if logic first absolutely necessitates non-contradiction, thus also necessitating eternity/infinity__thus in turn such logic necessitating its independencies of fundamental motions__beyond and outside its pseudo-dependencies on any forms of oneness__as you pre-suppositionally insist, as far as I can see of your opinions… I see nothing in your recent arguments to say otherwise… To me, you seem to be insisting on a oneness, or nothing else__and I mean an inter-locked oneness of a single conservation law Universe__instead of the independent areas of independent conservation motions and laws, inter-acting over eons of Universal time and wave-field-particle motion inter-actions, I am intending and contending…

The local motions are connected per conservation aspects and the various forms of energy which motion takes. I think we agree on this.

As I’ve stated before Tim, I can’t back such statements of “the various forms of energy which motion takes.” I think you may mean the various forms of structured matter which motion states of FS-Fields inter-actingly produce, but I can’t be sure, because I can’t parse the non-sentential logic used…

Infinite and eternal aspects complicate determinism as with the cycling universe model we used to discuss whereby who can say what aspects follow from an infinite number of cycles and carry over to effect the next cycle.

Tim, these are your interpretations of what I did not say. I may have mentioned many cycles existing in past times, which would be logically true in any necessary state of eternal time__but my initial premise was to talk about one complete decay and re-production cycle of the Universe__so’s you could better see the necessary dynamics that would be required to be involved, as to time, distance and velocities of fields and wave-particle motions of decay and re-condensations__as pertains to absolute c and within the full respect of all the laws of physics and nature__Including the laws of thought, i.e., logic__and for no other reason, than to clarify these necessary and most fundamental of modal motion actions__over one complete cycle, to make it easier to understand the physical states and motions involved__not some foolish belief system about it__just a simple and sensible scientific hypothesis, to replace the foolishness of a big-bang and inflation nonsense, coming from some impossible high-mass infinitesimal point, some stupid 13.7 billion years ago__as all too many fools naively believe…

I see no point in arguing with this as uncertainty and randomness are equivalent to determinism even if deterministic mechanics exist in this instance.??? However, perhaps you can explain to me how free will doesn't seemingly break the conservation laws which we both support as it only acts locally within the highest causal distances.

I don’t understand what you mean by; “it only acts locally within the highest causal distances…” Free-will is no different than the rock you throw, not violating the conservation laws… I don’t follow your thinking, in this area at all, Tim… Free-will no more violates conservation laws than playing cards, chess or baseball, etc… You haven’t shown anything that is in violation of conservation laws, except your own conjectures that it is__What do you want me to say…? I don’t see anything to refute… Free-will exists__Determinism exists__What’s the argument…? They are fully compatible, just as any free thought is with liberty… That’s why we honor liberty so highly__It’s freedom of will, within the sensible constraints of legal determinism… Law is often determined, because majorities over histories, have determined to have such sensible cultural laws, of which people choose by that same free-will, to live__liberty respecting__freely within…

How deeply connected is the FS?

That question, we do not have the scientific knowledge to answer__not even close to having the ability to answer…

You see to me, free will and thought in general is merely an interface of mind, body and environment.

Tim please, if you want to speak that simply of free-will, you’ll have to talk psychologically, and never touch a scientific method, and I don’t for a minute think you wish to talk psychology instead of physics__but such statement would require the looseness of psychology, or other such softr social sciences, to handle such dialogue… Thought is much more complex than the picture you’ve just attempted to splash-paint…

Break down the body at death and the brain stops functioning, but nothing is lost as the body decomposes and the consituents which established life no longer support the composite structure which is the living being. Where do the thoughts go though?

Thoughts die with the bio-body’s working memory states’ death__they stop working at death__No…? They can’t go nowhere else, unless you believe in telepathy, which I really don’t, even though I’ve seen it demonstrated more than a few times, especially if you know my wife and wacky friends… They’re all a lotta fun, though…

What constituent aspects went into a composite thought?

Simple em-frenquency inferences__There ain’t nothing more…

If thoughts have causal energy constituent components even if in various forms, then this is where I have problems with free will as it seems to suggest an isolated system or function within a universe which otherwise contains none as even electrical systems have thermal interfaces which allow loses of energy per conservation aspects.

Tim, come on__get real__you certainly can’t think thoughts are as simple as electrical circuits__which are so simple when compared to brain mechanics__you’re talking about tooth-picks vs. diamonds…

I just choose not to allow living beings with brains to be isolated entities which break scientific laws.

Tim, you’ve given absolutely no laws, or instances/incidents of, that are being broken/violated. You’ve only stated pure conjectures about breaking conservation laws__which free-will certainly is not doing, no more than a tossed ball by any child in the neighborhood…

I would rather see them as a highly complex interface unlike any other in nature where various forms of structured substance and energy meet to form the most unique process in the universe which is our thoughts.

And what difference does it make how you’d rather see em, as pertains to anything being scientifically assessed/analyzed…?

If all aspects of this process are not lost and the further actions accomplished by thoughts have a grounded physical path through various forms of energy transference, then where's the free will?

It’s in no different place than the child’s decision to throw the ball__It’s simply a memory space obeying all the conservation laws, but you seem to be forgetting it takes thousands, perhaps millions of photons and electrical neuron circuit firings to make a simple conceptual inference system’s path, all the way through the massive circuitry and billions of switches__allowing trillions of possible free-will choices, over enough operational time, but even a single day’s processing, produces hundreds of free-will choices and decisions… Tim, QM is child’s play, compared to free-will mechanics__if you’d ever take the time to think it through__thoroughly…

Sorting through the saturation of information is merely an aspect of a further interface of thoughts and information meeting with other thoughts and information.

And just exactly how many synapses do you think just fired in your lil’ ol’ pea-brain, to make that overly simple sentence/statement…??? “Merely” is not science Tim__It implies conjecture…

All it takes is the evolutionary process of passing down genes and such whereby certain aspects are dominant over others.

Are we talking about science or conjectural evolution, Tim…??? There isn’t a scientist on Earth, can describe exactly what goes on inside a gene, and you know it… That box is still tightly locked, except for a few generalities and some specifics__but, very few compared to what’s left to know about the inanimate to animate mechanics of such gene mechanics…

To truly understand thought we must also understand the evolutionary processes which structured it as a passed down system.

Tim, where do you get the idea that thought is passed down, in any form we do not already know about, especially since mankind is only capable of understanding syllogistic or symbolic statements as inferences, normally openly inferred into our brains__where we do further processing on it…? There’s nothing hidden Tim, when one remembers their childhood processing states of inferences, we heard, saw or read, or maybe a few other sense methods__but it’s all there if one but searches. There’s nothing scientifically known to be hidden in our gene pool transferences__as science ain’t got that far yet… You can’t go beyond the system that exists, unless you offer some new and sound science of your own… All I offer is what I absolutely know to be the truth of my childhood, mixed with the science and logic of adulthood… The childhood knowledge system is the most important to me, Tim__as imo, it’s the best and most profound science system… Many children have the capacity to put most scientists to shame, if they but had the confidence to stick to their natural knowledge systems__in the presence of adult’s far more evil attitudes…

We're jumping into the middle of the story and trying to explore the role of a key character, when thought processes were honed through millions of years of evolutionary and natural selective processes.

Well, you can believe that__I sure as hell ain’t gonna… I am of the opinion we start fresh every birth from a blank slate brain__and only the inference mechanics from birth on, builds our usable knowledge systems. Yes, we learn by the advantage of having access to the past’s thousands of years of stored historical library knowledge__but I accept absolutely zero innate knowledge being present, before live birth, and science has absolutely no gene-evidence to contradict this information__mainly because it’s bs, if you but thoroughly research your own inference mechanics necessities of total processings and its associated memory storage mechanics, etc… It ain’t no magic involved__just simple em-frequency mechanics paths you actually see happening, if you but look inside… It’s a most visible mechanics, late at night, just before going to sleep, and early in the morning, upon freshly awakening to a new day… The inference mechanics itself never changes__only its content changes, and free-will changes the stored content, and sometimes the actively entering actions, etc…

Perhaps our dominant file sorting system is an aspect of intelligence itself which seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom as they obviously aren't genetically engineered to have the dominant guidance to sort through the information saturation whereby they might learn more sophisticated forms of communication, the use of tools, etc.

Perhaps…

It's as I was speaking of earlier, intelligence guides, while ignorance absorbs further intelligence, whereby further connections are made and understanding is achieved.

Ignorance absorbs intelligence, Tim…? That makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry… Why would you want ignorance to absorb intelligence…? Are you meaning, if a certain area of your brain is ignorant of a certain subject area, and someone mentions information pertaining to this area, that area absorbs such new information…? Kinda a crude way of putting it, ain’t it, but is that what you mean…?

It's like simultaneously seeing through the eyes of both a child and adult and taking advantage of the benifits offered by both. I see no break in the chain of events whereby the interface of various systems and energies collide to make thoughts which further collide with each other to make connections and intelligence, but I do see many gaps in our understanding of this process whereby free will is assumed, but how 'free' is it if it isn't an isolated process but rather just a convergence of various different processes?

Tim, I don’t assume free-will__I absolutely know I have free-will, and I further absolutely know you have free-will, as well as does every living soul on Earth, and that’s not being religious, as I’ve been an atheist for many a year. It’s just I know the paths of my inference mechanics, and it’s certainly not collisions, or the information would be lost and not recoverable__which we know is not the truth, as we recover the childhood memories, you’ve alluded to above. And, the smoothness of that inference transference, just from perception, to judgment, intuition, memory, concepts and back and forth to memory, intuitions, judgments and wills is absolutely necessary or we couldn’t makes sense of the world, let alone, make meanings and understandings of it… Tim, we’ve all built our own brain’s intelligence, from birth on__there’s no magic__just us free-will beings, of freely choosing inference mechanics from stored memory to active memory states/agents, to judgments, wills, decisions and those pesky free-will actions…

If there is true motion/energy conservation here then there is no break of interaction which is how I define such concepts as 'choice' and 'free will' as implying a break in such.

Tim, where would you get such information from of there being no break of interaction__which would be stating you can’t process different areas of stored information, to self-create different and new concepts…? That just isn’t possible Tim, as I’ve seen all the concepts you use in even just this one post__so, you are breaking contact from one concept choice of speaking about it, to the next one, on and on and on… So, are you contradicting yourself, or just not realizing all the separate mental inter-actions, conjunctions and disjunctions of concepts that are absolutely necessary to yours, mine or anyone elses’ thinking systems, of inference mechanics…? Of course there’re breaks in the information chain, or you’d continue all your life to process a progressive concept, and none of us do process a progressive concept(except possibly the general Universal movie we may all process, idk), as we absolutely know we freely choose from the world and our many stored memory concepts__So, the facts of life’s known experiences contradict your logic, Tim… There are necessary breaks due to the natural processings’ disjunctions clearly taking place for perception to display different concepts at will, yet there’s no reason motion and energies can not be fully conserved by our extremely complex brain mechanics__at the same time as being compatible with these disjunctions and free-will’s many decision actions__There’s just an over-whelming number of synapses’ switches in the brain to fully accomplish such mechanics__and what I’ve described, you very well know you’ve done in this very post__as the evidence is here for all to read, and which real world correspond with the inference mechanics roughly described… If I were writing a professional paper, it’d take me a week or more to polish it, but this is simply my off the top of my head understandings of the issues at hand…

Choice in this sense, is merely an ordering of processes and not an original chain of events or 'something from nothing' as such free will concepts seem to support way more then what I'm suggesting. The mind becomes focused on many things whereby it finds dominant thoughts and concepts which divide the BS from the more usefull information pertaining to the guiding parameters.

What about all the times you just choose the concepts you think about, such as the simplest one of deciding to go to work, rather than stay home, or think about your inventions instead of not…???

As too the knowing future states from present states and positions, it's not that easy as herein lies a deep discussion with a fully deterministic system, which as I've stated, I'm not sure that we're a part of not in the sense of causality but rather interaction thresholds. To truly know any is to know all in such a system.

Boy, you sure like to add in a lotta conjectures, i.e., “To truly know any is to know all in such a system.” Are you implying we can’t know anything about the sun coming up tomorrow…? Even simple deduction allows us to know much about the future, without knowing all, so I don’t hold your views, in that area, if I’m reading you correctly… Tim, if it were a fully deterministic system, we would know everything about past, present and future states__as that would be simple classical mechanics, and easily knowable, in toto, so I probably fail to see your point… Are you referring to some state where we might be separate acting beings, from the deterministic system…? If so, I ain’t going there either, as I’ve read about that model elsewhere__It don’t work__It’s fully unscientific, imo…

It's an impossibility as it takes the entire system to determine a single position of any one thing along with it's path and future state.

Come on Tim__That would be like saying we can’t know anything, because we can’t know everything. Is this what you really meant to say…??? If the system is sourced of an independent ‘Manyness System States’, there’d be no problem of a single position being known in relation to any other known position__so what are you trying to state…??? If it makes no difference in a ‘Manyness System’, and you say it makes such an all important difference in a ‘Oneness System’__then certainly, please give me the free independence of the ‘Manyness System’__No questions asked… Sorry Tim, but your ‘Oneness System’ is looking even more horrible to me, than even I had imagined__“Give me freedom, or give me death…” “Oportunity is ignorance, on strike__Let’s party…!!!”

Yes, all internal motions are connected, but cannot be prederived due to the computational power of the system being the system itself whereby any internal computational aspect is running on far less power and information than the whole.

Better be careful here, Tim__or you’ll be destroying all the reasoning possible of the necessary defense of the system you are advocating… “There’s always more than one way to skin a cat...” Don’t forget about the power of prederiving massive amounts of informations from the images, analogical, metaphoric and alegorical inferences… Tim, I’d also have to say the internal computational aspect of pure seeing and knowing thought, is the most powerful computer in the world__because, when you ‘see’ fully__you absolutely know…

Reduce all things and concepts to motion related aspects within the FS, and you'll never achieve more computational motion within a region than you will within the whole.

Then why are our brains capable of doing just that…??? My brain can process far more information than any stupid computer__think about it__we process what we see, and computers have trouble processing anything of what they see, then only very crudely. ‘Scientific America’ made this point recently with a photo of a man floating sideways, in the air, above a city’s background__with the computer article’s question being; “Can a computer meaningfully process this image…?”__and the answer being; “No…!!!” In other words, I don’t agree with your above statement about computational reductions__as I do it all the time, mentally, in a much smaller space than your statement alludes to__The free-will brain “region…” Ain’t I a pisser…???

It's taken the universe this long to calculate everything we see around us per interactions at the speed of light, we can't do it any more efficently in any less time within any less distance than what the universe currently occupies as we are working at far less scales and speeds, concerning the state of all things, but we can find a means to predict the state of some things and interactions whereby we get into the accuracies and such covered by QM, RM and CM.

The Universe exists__The Universe does not process__Only free-will processes…

PS. To get an idea of what I'm trying to relate, reduce all aspects of energy and structure to FS and motion and consider our private perpetual motion conversations with closed system, engines and such and you'll see what I'm getting at. The brain is a thought engine in a sense and it's components and fuel cannot be a closed system if we are to support 100% energy/motion conservation. Yes, it may alter that which is input to output another form of energy or structure, but it cannot be totally isolated from the system whereby thoughts originate causing chains of events from nothing.

Tim, nobody’s saying thoughts are produced from nothing. I’ve always clearly stated all information comes from external ‘out to in’ inferences, with a wee bit of internal inferences about our fundamental bio-constitutions, so I don’t know why you even mention such… The brain is never a closed system and always functions within the conservation laws, through its extremely complex neural switching mechanisms. All is in full compatibility mode with all the laws of physics, and you’ve shown nothing that is not fully compatible__except your own conjectures… All I see is, you are destroying your own validity by attempting a false contradiction of free-will and sound inference logic mechanics…

If this be the case, then free will is a byproduct of operational aspects. Use the names by which we associate our world to dictate a path of logic and then turn off the familiarity caused by such labels and witness the system operating as a unit both bio and geo in unision through the evolution of both bio and geo states and structures.

Tim, are you suggesting I start processing as Melanie…???