<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The interesting qustion is where exactly does the deterministic system turn into something nondeterministic, and how? We know from chaos theory in physics that this is possible. Chaotic, random behavior can emerge in a deterministic system. A strange attractor in a dynamical system like the Lorenz attractor or the Rössler attractor is a good example.</span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">William James says it is a sign of will to focus our attention. When our minds are focused on a particular object or goal in an act of will it is fundamentally an effort of attention (in Nick's words intentionality is the mark of the vital) and it is voluntary and not predetermined where we choose to focus our attention.</span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">According to William James free will means therefore we can choose to focus our attention on any subject or topic. Free will requires "freedom of thought", similar to freedom of speech. In western countries we have freedom of speech, which means we can say what we like, even if it is critical of the government. For example we could say the Trump administration is like a TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out - without being sent to Guantanomo or Alcatraz island.</span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The key seems to be the ability to consider all kinds of alternatives for possible actions and to pick the one that fits best to the situation (the internal state and the external conditions). The wider the range of possibilities, alternatives, ideas and different hypotheses, i.e. the larger the entropy of thought, the larger the freedom. </span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-emoji: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The mastery of language gives us through combinatorial explosion an almost infinite range of alternatives to consider. And it adds a new dimension to our intentionality.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space-collapse: preserve;"> </span>As Nick writes in his paper from 2000 intentionality has always been immanent in biological organisms, but only our<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space-collapse: preserve;"> intentionality can be abstract, i.e. our mental states can be directed at abstract goals, not just mates and food as in animals, including such lofty goals as understanding free will.</span></p><br dir="auto"><div dir="auto">-J.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div align="left" dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com> </div><div>Date: 5/28/25 11:46 PM (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The entropy of thought </div><div><br></div></div><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Jochen writes:<br><br></p><p style="margin:0in">< <span style="color:black">Free will is according to James related to the question what are the forces that increase or influence our attention. If I understand him correctly this means to identify the forces that reduce our "entropy of thought", and thereby our freedom of choice, correct? For example in the case of addiction the entropy of thought is reduced to 0, because the addict is only able to think of one thing, the object of desire, and one action, to get more of it. In this sense free will would mean a high entropy of thought.</span> ></p><p style="margin:0in"><br>Consistent with a deterministic system. With lots of cores and memory, many hypotheses can be considered at once. Thus George has free will.</p></div></body></html>