[Paleopsych] free wills and quantum won'ts
G. Reinhart-Waller
waluk at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 1 03:12:09 UTC 2005
Howard writes:
>>The free-will debate is an intellectual ruckus over something worth
ruckusing about--the question of whether we respond to a conundrum by
making a pre-programmed, robotic decision, a decision that the ultimate
mathematician or mechanician could theoretically predict, right? It's
the question of whether our not we're kidding ourselves. We're under
the impression that we have options and that the exertion of some sort
of thought, feeling, and will really does help us make up our mind, or
whether we simply pinball automatically down just one predetermined
path. It's a question of what will is and if what we think it is is all
wrong.
Isn't it? Howard >>
Hi Howard, I agree that free will is worth all amounts of discourse
both favorably disposed and those opinions opposite. The only groups of
people I can think of who are without freewill are those controlled by a
strong belief system such as a demanding religion or strong social
imperative. Also could be that a political structure is controlling in
that it does not allow its adherents the ability to think for themselves
and cloisters them into a group-think. If one is able to reject the
aforementioned groups (religious, social, political) then possibly free
will is still free.
Gerry
HowlBloom at aol.com wrote:
> Sorry it took me so long to answer this. I puzzled over it
> considerably. Free will is a matter of whether there are choices and
> whether the choice we make is determined entirely by prior causes...or
> is this what the question of free will is about?
>
> The free-will debate is an intellectual ruckus over something worth
> ruckusing about--the question of whether we respond to a conundrum by
> making a pre-programmed, robotic decision, a decision that the
> ultimate mathematician or mechanician could theoretically predict,
> right? It's the question of whether our not we're kidding ourselves.
> We're under the impression that we have options and that the exertion
> of some sort of thought, feeling, and will really does help us make
> up our mind, or whether we simply pinball automatically down just one
> predetermined path. It's a question of what will is and if what we
> think it is is all wrong.
>
> Isn't it? Howard
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 8:28:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> dsmith06 at maine.rr.com writes:
>
> Traditionally, the problem of free will is not a question of
> whether or not we have choices, it is the question of whether or
> not these choices are caused by prior events.
>
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* HowlBloom at aol.com <mailto:HowlBloom at aol.com>
> *To:* paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> <mailto:paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2005 11:19 PM
> *Subject:* [Paleopsych] free wills and quantum won'ts
>
> This is from a dialog Pavel Kurakin and I are having behind
> the scenes. I wanted to see what you all thought of it. Howard
>
> You know that I'm a quantum skeptic. I believe that our math
> is primitive. The best math we've been able to conceive to
> get a handle on quantum particles is probabilistic. Which
> means it's cloudy. It's filled with multiple choices. But
> that's the problem of our math, not of the cosmos. With more
> precise math I think we could make more precise predictions.
>
> And with far more flexible math, we could model large-scale
> things like bio-molecules, big ones, genomes, proteins and
> their interactions. With a really robust and mature math we
> could model thought and brains. But that math is many
> centuries and many perceptual breakthroughs away.
>
> As mathematicians, we are still in the early stone age.
>
> But what I've said above has a kink I've hidden from view. It
> implies that there's a math that would model the cosmos in a
> totally deterministic way. And life is not deterministic. We
> DO have free will. Free will means multiple choices, doesn't
> it? And multiple choices are what the Copenhagen School's
> probabilistic equations are all about?
>
> How could the concept of free will be right and the
> assumptions behind the equations of Quantum Mechanics be
> wrong? Good question. Yet I'm certain that we do have free
> will. And I'm certain that our current quantum concepts are
> based on the primitive metaphors underlying our existing forms
> of math. Which means there are other metaphors ahead of us
> that will make for a more robust math and that will square
> free will with determinism in some radically new way.
>
> Now the question is, what could those new metaphors be?
>
> Howard
>
> ----------
> Howard Bloom
> Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into
> the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass
> Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century
> Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York
> University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute
> www.howardbloom.net
> www.bigbangtango.net
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board
> member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The
> Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member:
> New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the
> Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society,
> Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution
> Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory
> board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New
> Paradigm book series.
> For information on The International Paleopsychology Project,
> see: www.paleopsych.org
> for two chapters from
> The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces
> of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
> For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind
> from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
> ----------
> Howard Bloom
> Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
> Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From
> The Big Bang to the 21st Century
> Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University;
> Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute
> www.howardbloom.net
> www.bigbangtango.net
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member:
> Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project;
> founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of
> Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human
> Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human
> Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor
> -- New Paradigm book series.
> For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see:
> www.paleopsych.org
> for two chapters from
> The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of
> History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
> For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the
> Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list