[FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Lucas has been mentioned by me, though (perhaps too) indirectly:

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf

My recent attempt to deflect Marcus' descent into the QM-Consciousness red herring was driven by that paper. I'm still enthralled by Feferman's "open-ended schematic axiomatic systems" ... and the reason I attended the Open-Ended Evolution (OEE) meetings.

Your (fantastic) attack on my suggestion that liberty scales as the objectively coherent agent scales is well-made. If there are no degrees of freedom anywhere in the world, then how can there be anything like "liberty"? And my answer is that I'm not talking about some mystical adjacent possible. I'm talking about [semi]invariance under translation. The translation *might* be in time, with or without the exploitation of some kind of freedom. Or the translation might be across space, e.g. How is Bookshop.org (not) like Amazon.com? What measures show them the same and what measures show them different? That variation, that uncertainty, that wiggle, is "liberty". And it exists across whatever (coherent) objects you might register from the ambient milieu.

And your DID article mirrors very well a sidetrack I'd like to pursue (but probably won't because I'll run out of my finite curiosity or have to get back to work) is this:

A polygenic p factor for major psychiatric disorders
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0217-4

I wouldn't be surprised if the 2 documents have a small network distance.


On 4/5/21 11:41 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Glen, et al -
> 
> As is my wont, I cannot help but notice a bifurcation opportunity in this "free will" narrative back toward collective awareness/action.  
> 
> Can an *individual* (entirely a delusion of course, but we have beat that horsehide drum) be induced to *behaving as if* they have no free will?   One could claim that that is the project of enslavement, military conscription/training, encarceration, cult-induction, even technical discipline training.    Your reference to pandemic lockdowns as a possible *unintentional* mechanism to induce a feeling (stylized behaviour?) of helplessness (will-less-ness?).   Q&Co would insist that this  is NOT unintentional and patently aided by first making people drink microwaved, flouridated water polluted by chem-trails while being irradiated with 5G signals  penetrate standard-issue tin-foil hats.
> 
> Cynical models of Socialization/Civilization seem to suggest a Grande Project to inhibit free will at the scale of the individual while a more generous model might suggest that the project is instead to "gather up" the best of the individuals (or more aptly recursive subgroups in some kind of nearly-decomposable heterarchy?) and synthesize across the implied spectrum to yield more virtuous coupling between different levels than vicious ones (by what objective function metric?).
> 
> Following Marcus' implication, perhaps it is specious to seek to impute the same kind of consciousness we already *possibly* mis-apply to ourselves onto collectives of our selves when maybe/probably such is already wrong for the individual.   I think you both are of the stripe that believes/prefers "it is machines all the way down!" though I've heard a panpsychic/pan-consciousness sympathy woven into your narratives.   Perhaps you will put me straight with some variation of "machines all the way down" and "panconsciousness" are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> I am surprised that J.R. Lucas hasn't been invoked here (if my memory and archive searches are sound) in this discussion of effibility, scrutibility, pan-consciousness, and the play of quantum indeterminancy.   I was shocked to discover that his seminal paper on this topic was nearly as old as I am:
> 
> Minds_Machines_and_Godel - 1961
> <https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lucas/Minds_Machines_and_Godel.html>
> 
> I defer to you guys who are clearly more smart-fellers than I ever was in the intricacies of the language and technical details, but I find it a nice baseline to start thinking from.
> 
> I also wonder if many of your (Glen's) homunculii might be tickled by this idea about consciousness?
> 
>     could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/>
> 
> - Steve (or one of his homunculii)


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ