Free will VS. Decided: Based on self-reference procedure

We think that is obvious, intuitive free will. Of course, we have free will, and we use it every day.

But we also believe that the cause and effect is equally clear and intuitive. We fight to turn a glass of milk, and spilled milk, every time without exception.

So how do we reconcile these two significant concepts? The predecessor of the reasons for the decision if the effect and how to break our hearts free, and its predecessor, due to make a discretionary decision? The answer is not obvious. We are here to do some heavy thinking, if we are to save the free will, from a logical bind.

Definitions and means

We must begin with the definition.

The ability of a common philosophical definition of free will, otherwise. This is a typical definition, and continue to cause major discussion.

But I is not the definition of the fan. Even if a person is free to decide, you can do, otherwise it? No matter what the reasons I decided to "A" instead of "B", "I" freedom of choice, my past, I'm sure my choice, it is not certain, if we retreat, and again operation, if I can, or will or should be, otherwise.

Otherwise it is impossible to do does not mean a lack of the necessity of free will.

Therefore, for this discussion, we will use a different, less rigorous, but intuitive definition. If we focus on our minds, can independently decide its predecessor because of our definition, but pointed out that the free will decision, not just causes, conditions, ability and experience.

Wait, some people will oppose it. We have such an unrelated incident, they are known as random. Quantum phenomena as a result of random events tend to exhibit our judges (at least based on physics).

Consent. Free will, you must disconnect the current decision-making, and reasons from the past, but just random selection. Therefore, free will is not only caused by the United Nations, but one of the non-random.

Causal relationship between logic and self-reference

As a next step, we need to investigate the causes and effects.

Let us give an example. If the conditions (a) with a glass of milk, two conditions (children knock on the glass) and three conditions (the spread of homework across the table), we can reasonably conclude that: the combination of three conditions results, four (operating wet). We can write this

IF and (one, two, three), (d)

Here and said that all three items in the brackets must be real results, "four" took place. Of course, the digital arithmetic digital, but on behalf of the conditions, such as: milk in the glass, the result.

We can continue to lag behind the causes and effects of sequence. A glass of milk sitting on the table, because the child pour the milk in the refrigerator because parents purchase.

When we look around, basically all that exists, in the room we occupied some of the causes and effects. In addition, like spilled milk, such as causes and effects of each instance can be traced backward through a causal sequence.

All this to establish a free will of the mess. If the backward progression to rule the day, then I like my decision, it is possible to catch up with progress, squeezing free will.

Therefore, we must stop the backward progress.

We can (try) to stop the progress and self-causality. What has caused? For example, one itself. The logic that "if A, then A is a true statement, for example:

"Rain," "This is the rain."

Interestingly, it is true, but it certainly does not help. We need a more powerful meaning of self-causality. This self-causality will be more like "the one to create the conditions, leading to."

But we exist within temporal reality. The flow of time, does not allow existing objects to create their own backwardness.

But let us not give up. Considered a:

"Market, its offer before the phrase" to quote these words, the offer before

This mind is a little bent. Language skills themselves and their ideas, we can construct their own sentences. Custom entity (almost), through their own independent, and such a sentence as the previous sentence, they create an idea.

Expansion. We can also expand the self-referential, self-referential logic cycle. For example, let an equal B, C, and b is equal to C is equal to two A

Now this cycle creates a logical contradiction (C is A, but then twice), which does not seem to provide any practical approach to free will. However, what happened, if we look at the static loop. If we dynamically start cycle, that is, at one point, the power of example B, then press a button to start the beginning of the loop around a step forward.

If we take for B, then A equals four, C is equal to 8, B, equal to 8, A, equal to eight, C equal to 16, and so on. The cycle performance of their behavior, resulting in a change, because of its self-reference.

Imagine now multiple loops, loop comparison conditions (A equals B, and C is greater than D, E, if it is not), and the value itself (f is equal to an era of e) the multiplier. Add some vague, such as the range (B plus or minus 20%, twice daily) or sum (A, B to F, the sum is greater than by LG), this cycle has become increasingly dynamic and arbitrary .

Their behavior and output impact of small initial investment, even more dependent on the interaction of self-reference. Reasons (input) and effect (output) to become associated, but not completely random.

This means that as the key and core concepts, so we will once again: complex enough self-reference of the project, build into the circulation, trigger start, will create results, independent from the initial input value, but at the same time is not random.

This type of behavior, that is independent the initial investment, but non-randomized, progress is the center of our definition of free will here.

You might raise some objections, perhaps strongly.

Although it may be independent of the complexity of the input-output cycle, not output a circular configuration of the function? The causes and effects remain.
While this is interesting, who cares? This is what to do with free will?


Let's dive into these issues, the success of the answer may allow the brain there is no other difference, can break the bonds of cause and effect.

Circulation and self-referential

We have all seen the complex Rube Goldberg gadgets marble knocked the stick to open off the start-up fan, and so on, until, for example, a glass of milk leakage. We do not need a specific input; many actions can be triggered by marble. They key is configured.

In the same way, the loop configuration can keep the reason of the results, thus the loop is independent initial investment, rather than independent of the initial configuration.

However, this is a simple configuration. An adequate level of complexity, self-cycle development of new features:

To optimize its operations
To develop when faced with changing conditions
In order to simulate future results
The preferences of the fruits of development
Remember


Self-loop in the development of these capabilities has become a very complicated watch back to the cycle of the loop, creating a loop to calculate the independent circulation, and can remember and partition. Enough complexly means this, that is unmistakably complex, members of the interconnection of trillions of dollars, billions of dollars, millions of cycles.

These high-end capabilities to its circulation, circulation, and to evaluate and change them enough self-referential entity, means that the growth beyond the initial investment not only beyond its initial configuration. Bottom line, self-reference, in a large number of complex level, breaking the link, not only the initial (and follow-up) input, but also the cycle of the initial configuration.

This station as the core assumptions, a large number of complex self-referential loop to create the nature of non-random, uncaused reasons.

The brain and circulatory

This is what to do with the brain?

Very simple, the brain is a self-referential cycle of large-scale a complex. The brain contains tens of billions of cells and interconnect one trillion U.S. dollars. These connections is a million millions of feedback loop, local, in the intermediate level, the brain and around the world.

Self-reference of the human brain advanced enough to produce consciousness, assigned meaning, and, presumably as a symbol of truth, morality, and beyond, sophisticated ideas (such as God).

On behalf of the brain at the level of self-reference, as a unique, self-reference in this speed and the business. In this regard basically did not match the human brain, the brain has a free will, and not too many other people seem to not be surprised.

On the computer how? The computer is running faster than the brain, and to provide more memory. But at least in the current state of development of computer operation is a feedforward, linear, therefore, limited self-reference.

What is the nature itself? Good question, the nature of the feedback. However, the nature of the operating speed is too slow (the greenhouse effect requires decades) and not the loops, that is naturally outside itself strengthen the observation itself.

Therefore, we reach our conclusions? The statement that I would definitely, yes, we have arrived. Free will require generation of non-random, uncaused causes. Brain, and its large-scale circulation, the function of self-reference, do this. Therefore, the brain can exercise free will.

Close

You may not agree. Of course, I have laid a hypothesis, rather than inevitable.

Your differences, I would say, must be limited. You may disagree, I proved the existence of free will. But I think you can, in turn, the state, you can now actively deny free will.

The reason is that the special nature of the brain, that it is beyond our current understanding of the complex. We can not with any deterministic model or calculation of the brain dynamic.

What does this mean? It means is that our standard experience of causes and effects of turning back the experience of billiards, global warming, DNA biochemistry, or even a black hole all-star interactions in the brain to stop.

We do not know how cause and effect in the brain. I have provided the causes and effects of the standard broken. You may not agree with me are announced, but it certainly does not make any announcement will indeed apply to the causes and impact of the standard.

So, although you may not be able to ensure that you agree with me, we have free will, I would say that the complexity of the brain, our knowledge is limited, and its operation that we do not mean you can not say.