Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Consciousness & Free Will




It really can "choose". It is not just a deterministic machine, a puppet of its influencers...

AI can also choose, but no one attributes any free will to it. When Google's AI recently goofed, Google administrators put the blame on the woke scientists programming it, not on the AI itself, which, despite the fact that it keeps on 'learning' on its own, still functions as a cause and effect machine...

[Neil Frarey]

And what troubles me ... I'm creative, very creative. I create. And I feel ashamed to even use that term ... create. Such as, who the f'k am I to use that biblical expression which by its very nature implies bringing something into existence.

And BTW, Inventive and Creative are two entirely separate states of being.

Creativity can drive you to death, as it has done for so many creatives simply because of the 'deep need' to bring something fresh to life. Inventiveness is simply problem solving ... triggered by a something else.



.

[Bob Armstrong]

Consciousness & Free Will

Wikipedia

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence.^[1] However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.^[2] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.^[3][4] The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.^[5]

Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: ordered distinction between self and environment, simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

My Belief

1. Animals have this life characteristic - humans seem to feel they have a higher level of it than other animals. Work with mammals (dolphins) by the military has established that they have "self-awareness", as separate from what they know through their senses. It would seem then, that likely all animals have this capability. I believe this may be the case with fish (Do we classify them as "animals"?).

2. I am unsure whether other realms of Earth life also have "consciousness" (Insect; Plant).

3. To be conscious, to me, does not necessarily mean that the "I" believes it can control itself, or anything external - i.e. that it can alter the natural cause/effect function to which it is subject. So being "conscious" does not, to me, necessarily mean that the living being has "free will".

4. If the above is true, then from whence have we humans, until recent advances in science, gotten the notion that the "I" is a "free will entity", that it has a psychological power to choose not to do what it is naturally programmed to do by the cause/effect function. It really can "choose". It is not just a deterministic machine, a puppet of its influencers.

5. Theists believe the concept of free will, comes out of religious belief, specifically the concept that some human actions are good, and some are bad. It is the religious issue of "morality". Religions believe that we are not just machines, and that a serial killer is just a person with a glitch in their normal program. Religion believes, outside of proven insanity, that people have the capability of "choosing".......that they can choose to be altruistic; that they can choose to cause pain to others.

6. Yet........it does not seem that all atheists believe that all human actions are "determined". They do not accept that there is no such thing as personal responsibility (i.e. Free Will). Some atheists argue that human responsibility for their choices comes directly out of the proper understanding, civilly, of "Human Nature". I will have to leave it to those CT'ers in this category, to take any explanation of "free will" (Non-Religiously) further.

Bob A (Member of the "Theist Community", a Religion)

[Dilip Panjwani]

a life threating crisis[/B] ...

...

The best attitude indeed, in times of crisis is: despite our crisis, we are blessed to be...

[Neil Frarey]

Yes! And your comments and Dilip's too are so very informative ... I've already been enlightened so much!! So, thanks for those!!

Hard to find to the true path, but the spark of freedom and compassion burns within us all. I hope that elected leaders such as President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and President Javier Milei of Argentina are just the beginning ...

And may God bless Israel finding their way through their struggles too!!



.

[Sid Belzberg]

Explore all you like, Sid. I do the same! Every moment of every day. Believe me .. I do.

But at the end of the day ... we are blessed to be.

I absolutely agree with that, Neil. I found this thread quite interesting. A big improvement over trying to argue with someone who believes that human nature will magically change and that Marxism will all of a sudden work, or that .04 percent of the atmosphere carbon dioxide somehow is a thermostat changing the weather, influencing the sun that is a hundred times larger than the earth or that mandating lethal injections after conning people into believing that a man-made virus that is no worse than the flu is somehow so deadly that small business destroying measures were needed.

It's interesting how a small group of elites and their puppet Marxist governments push all three bullshit agendas in addition to their insane obsession with "overpopulation." and trying to destroy the food supply, starving everyone to death the same way the great Marxist Stalin did during the destruction of Ukrainian farms in the 1930s.

[Neil Frarey]

Since when was exploring how nature works inconsistent with having a belief in God?

Explore all you like, Sid. I do the same! Every moment of every day. Believe me .. I do.

But at the end of the day ... we are blessed to be.

[Sid Belzberg]

You know what's most revealing with this bullsh*t thread???

When any of you are hard pressed up against a life threating crisis ... you will reach for God.

Each and every single one of you.

1. We are blessed to be.

...

Since when was exploring how nature works inconsistent with having a belief in God?

[Neil Frarey]

You know what's most revealing with this bullsh*t thread???

When any of you are hard pressed up against a life threating crisis ... you will reach for God.

Each and every single one of you.

1. We are blessed to be.

...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Let me take a shot at Dilip/Sid's Deterministic View of Life

1. The body, having what has been termed in the past as "Consciousness", is merely a DNA/Hormonal "machine".

2. It has a data base from which it draws information in making what appears to be a "choice".

3. In every identical choice situation, the same data will be drawn on, and the same "choice" made.

4. So the data used is the "cause"; the alleged "choice" is the necessary effect.

5. Thus human actions are always "determined". It is simple "Cause/Effect". There is no "choice", there is no arbitrary intervention in the process of what was previously known as "free will".

Is this simplification accurate enough?

If so, I'll try to make some intelligent response as someone who believes in "Consciousness/Free Will".

Bob A

When you say: what has been termed in the past as "Consciousness", what do you mean?

[Sid Belzberg]

Let me take a shot at Dilip/Sid's Deterministic View of Life

1. The body, having what has been termed in the past as "Consciousness", is merely a DNA/Hormonal "machine".

2. It has a data base from which it draws information in making what appears to be a "choice".

3. In every identical choice situation, the same data will be drawn on, and the same "choice" made.

4. So the data used is the "cause"; the alleged "choice" is the necessary effect.

5. Thus human actions are always "determined". It is simple "Cause/Effect". There is no "choice", there is no arbitrary intervention in the process of what was previously known as "free will".

Is this simplification accurate enough?

If so, I'll try to make some intelligent response as someone who believes in "Consciousness/Free Will".

Bob A

Let me take a shot at Dilip/Sid's Deterministic View of Life

I don't have that view at all. I mentioned that one of the explanations of entangled particles correlating with each other instantaneously, no
matter how far apart they are, is that they are not communicating with each other at all; they were preprogrammed to behave that way. Preprograming
at a subatomic level implies determinism, which I rejected, hence the alternative model I presented.
The rest of what you post regarding consciousness, etc, is nothing I have ever touched upon.

[Bob Armstrong]

Let me take a shot at Dilip/Sid's Deterministic View of Life

1. The body, having what has been termed in the past as "Consciousness", is merely a DNA/Hormonal "machine".

2. It has a data base from which it draws information in making what appears to be a "choice".

3. In every identical choice situation, the same data will be drawn on, and the same "choice" made.

4. So the data used is the "cause"; the alleged "choice" is the necessary effect.

5. Thus human actions are always "determined". It is simple "Cause/Effect". There is no "choice", there is no arbitrary intervention in the process of what was previously known as "free will".

Is this simplification accurate enough?

If so, I'll try to make some intelligent response as someone who believes in "Consciousness/Free Will".

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Neil:

Another form of the Theist Community core belief # 1 (Post # 1):1. We are blessed to be, rather than not.

Bob A

[Neil Frarey]

Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

1. We are blessed to be.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Diliip,
i find your comments on determinism and science to be very interesting. Imagine two coins flipped simultaneously. Even if separated by a vast distance, if they always land with matching sides (both heads or both tails), you'd suspect some hidden connection between them. This is analogous to entanglement in the quantum world. Entangled particles exhibit a bizarre correlation – measuring one instantly determines the state of its distant partner, seemingly defying notions of distance and time.

To explain this weirdness, pilot wave theory proposes that particles are guided by an invisible wave carrying "hidden variables" – instructions that predetermine their behavior. Imagine the coins having tiny markings only visible under a special light. Those markings would dictate how they land, removing true randomness from the outcome.

The problem is that entanglement suggests these hidden instructions change instantly across distances, coordinating the entangled particles' behavior. This leads to a potentially troubling idea called superdeterminism. If everything is preprogrammed from the universe's beginning by hidden variables, it implies our choices aren't truly free. Imagine not just the coins, but our own decisions about how to measure the particles were predetermined. This challenges our intuitive understanding of cause and effect.

The alternative to the pilot wave theory, the "standard model", does not even address this idea that when one entangled particle is observed, even if the other particle is lightyears away, it instantaneously does the exact opposite of the observed particle, seemingly at speeds faster than light violating the special theory that imposes a cosmic speed limit of the speed of light. It does not explain how this is possible; it simply acknowledges this strange fact without explanation.

My partner in life, science, and business developed an interesting physics hypothesis while skipping stones across a pond at the famous Mount Royal in Montreal. Together, we worked on writing it up formally as well as an experiment to validate the hypothesis physically.

In quantum physics, entangled particles exhibit a seemingly impossible connection – changes to one particle can instantaneously affect its partner, even across vast distances. This phenomenon appears to violate Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit. We propose a new model and experimental validation, introducing hidden wave structures and the disruptive influence of decoherence to explain this strange behavior while adhering to relativistic constraints.


A Nested Wave Model for Quantum Non-locality: Reconciling with Special Relativity
By Sidney H Belzberg and Alicia Belzberg

Abstract
We propose a nested wave model to address this nonlocal behavior without abandoning the fundamental principles of relativity. Our model introduces a hidden wave structure (Wave 2) interacting with conventional wavefunctions (Wave 1). As entangled particles separate by significant distances, new nested wave structures emerge within Wave 2 to mediate seemingly non-local entanglement effects. Importantly, quantum decoherence, increasing with distance, could disrupt the coherence of the Wave 2 structures. Decoherence introduces increasing "noise" into the Wave 2 system, potentially causing a delay as the entanglement signal must overcome this disruption over increasing distances. Rather than hindering entanglement, this disruption offers a potential mechanism for explaining a minuscule delay in the observed non-locality.

Mathematically, we model this process with a modified Schrödinger equation containing nested terms whose interactions scale as a function of separation distance and entanglement severity ('η'). Additionally, we introduce an exponential decoherence term, dependent on distance ('d'), to account for the potential degradation of nested wave interactions. We include a theoretical limit informed by the speed of light as a critical threshold for generating new nested wave structures:

i∂Ψ(x,t) / ∂t = [−ℏ² / 2m ⋅ ∇² + V(x) + Σ{ki f(η, ai(d), c) Φi(x,t)} + β * e^(-kd) * Ψ(x,t)] Ψ(x,t)

Here, 'c' is a proxy for the speed-of-light limit in nested wave generation dynamics. Individual nested waves ('Φi') possess scale factors ('ai') exhibiting distance ('d') and entanglement dependency through 'f(η).' Notably, the inclusion of parameter 'c' directly reflects the model's focus on a nested wave system that respects relativistic constraints for each interacting level within Wave 2."
This model aims to provide a mathematically sound approach to understanding entanglement within the constraints of Special Relativity. This novel nested wave paradigm opens new avenues for investigating a model that explains non-locality within the context of respecting special relativity, hence offering a complete standard model.

We propose a lab-scale experiment to test this model. Entangled photons will be measured at two distances with high-precision atomic clocks, seeking a consistent but minuscule delay in correlation times at the further distance. If observed consistently, this infinitesimal delay supports our nested wave hypothesis. Conversely, the absence of a consistent subtle infinitesimal delay would corroborate the instantaneous action-at-a-distance interpretation of the Standard Model.

Hi Sid,
The hypothesis you and Alicia have generated is quite intriguing indeed!
The phenomenon of 'Entanglement' is very close to my heart, as it gives us hope of 'living on' after death. The determinants within our brains of the electromagnetic waves which have the property of consciousness, could very well be entangled as a unit elsewhere, and as you would know, when one of the entangled units becomes less cohesive (eventually dying), the cohesiveness of the other units becomes stronger! And for all you know, our entire bodies may have an entangled counterpart elsewhere...
Deepak Chopra and others, on the other hand, believe that our consciousness merges with the other conscious electromagnetism in the universe, amazingly enhancing what 'we' experience...
Most scientists and philosophers however subscribe to the view that death marks the end of our souls (our consciousness of 'me', our memories, our thoughts, our consciousness as a whole)
By the way, stay tuned for my upcoming book: "Anatomy of the soul"...