One Old Cat

 

One Old Cat

 My house is quiet today.

All it's missing is one old cat.

She spent most of her time sleeping in her bed.

I never saw nor heard her unless I went to her.

But she is gone now.

And the quiet without her is much worse than the quiet with her.

You have no free will, but you must behave as if you do. End of debate.

You don't have free will.  All of your actions and thoughts could be predicted by someone that knows everything about you.  I don't mean a close friend or family member, but rather a scientist or a omniscient being that has collected all the movements of every quantum particle that has been part of your entire life.  That being could predict what you would choose before you could.  The free will with which you think you make your decisions, is an illusion.

Each of us makes hundreds of choices each day.  The choices we make are influenced by the events going on immediately around us, but also by the algorithms that exist in our minds.  Each person has different algorithms and our algorithms are altered constantly in response to new inputs.  The algorithms in our minds our constructed from our life experiences, from the foods we eat and the hormones and chemicals in our bodies, as well as our education and physical environments.  For one person, a traumatic childhood experience involving a dog may adjust mind algorithms to cause the person to avoid interactions with dogs in the future.  For another person, growing up in a small rural community may produce algorithms in the mind that favor trusting strangers.

 

Uncontrolled thoughts

Science reveals to us that our brain is more like a collection of minds instead of a single mind.  Our brains are a collection of many smaller sections each processing stimuli and information and passing along transformed information to other parts of the brain.  The occipital lobe processes what our eyes see, the temporal lobe processes what our ears hear, other parts of the brain cause our reflexes to react instantly to dangers and sensations.  And still other parts of the brain store memory and personality.  All of these brain lobes send signals that cause us to act, or not act, and another part of our brain, chiefly the frontal lobe, interprets and creates explanations of our actions.  All of the subsections of our brain are sending signals throughout the brain and are clamoring for attention.  We have no control over what these brain subsections cause us to think about.  Sights and sounds pop into the awareness area of our mind based on what our visual and auditory brain centers perceive.  Just like the way the sound of a train whistle pops into your mind when you hear it, so to do thoughts just pop into our minds from sources we can't determine.  We don't get to choose what we think about.  External or internal stimuli prompt each of our thoughts.

 

Many events bombard our mind causing our thoughts to shift directions and our bodies to take action.  A butterfly passing by reminds me that I wanted to buy new bushes for the garden and I check the clock to see if I can get to the store before it closes.  Likewise, my brain is invoking thoughts in response to internal stimuli that only my brain is aware of.  These invoked thoughts, whether by internal or external stimuli, affect "the thinker" in the mind.

 

Our actions are predetermined (no free will), but are not predictable.

At any moment of decision, there will be some immediate external stimuli that provide input to our choices, but the largest factor in the course of action we take will be determined by the algorithms that have been evolving in our minds all of our lives.  It seems like we have free will, and can make a choice, but the truth is that the result of our deliberation is predetermined by the laws of physics.  We can deliberate.  But we have no choice in whether or not we deliberate.  We may be at a restaurant trying to choose between the healthier meal or the tastier meal.  Just after deciding to go with the tastier item, we see our fitness instructor walk into the restaurant, and from that visual input we change our decision and choose the healthier item instead.  The presence of the fitness instructor is an external event that caused us to change our mind; and we had no control over that external event happening.  The same is true of the algorithms within our minds.  We have no control over which choice our mind will decide upon because we can't see all the variables that go into the algorithms that are influencing the choice.

 

Many psychological studies have demonstrated that a device attached to a person's head reading their brain waves can be used to predict the choice a person will make on a test before that person even makes the choice for themselves.  A subconscious part of our brain is reaching the decision then letting the conscious part of our brain know what decision was made.

 

Quantum mechanics of the mind

But what about inputs from the quantum realm?  Some people promote the idea that our mind is connected to quantum particles that are known to burst into existence then cease to exist.  These virtual particles could be affecting our consciousness and represent our personality and our soul.  Unfortunately that theory does not withstand much scrutiny.  The virtual particles that appear randomly have miniscule influence upon the behavior of the atoms and particles when they appear.  The phenomenal success of quantum theory proves the influence of virtual particles is so small that it rarely even needs to be considered.  Even if you do want to accept, that occasionally one of those random virtual particles affect your behavior, it would be akin to saying that, "If my mind's algorithm compute a value of greater than 1,000,000,000,000 then I will chose the healthy food, and if not, I will choose the unhealthy food."  At this moment the algorithm scores exactly 1,000,000,000,000, but then a random virtual particle comes into existence, subtracts 1 from that value (I choose the value of 1 out of a trillion because we know the impact of virtual particles are miniscule), and therefore causes me to choose the unhealthy food.  Such occurrence is possible, but these types of events would happen extremely rarely, probably less than once per lifetime, which implies a soul or personality coming from a subatomic world has little impact.  Also it is important to understand that the particles are virtual and random and do not come into existence at the moment of a human making a decision.

 

So what?  You've read this far and agree that based on the arguments above, we don't have free will.  Does it matter?  The answer is No.  Not really.  Because even though we don't really have free will it sure feels like we have control over our choices.  It feels like that "we" are in charge of the decisions we make.  We can't just sit back and wait to see what choices our subconscious makes for us.  We are still going to deliberate, and we are still going to act or not act.  We have no choice but to continue to act as if we have free will.

 

Free will and our behavior

Does the belief that we lack free will affect our behavior?  For some, the answer may be 'yes'.  For most, the answer is mostly 'no'.  I deliberate about decisions, but I don't recall ever including in my deliberations the thought, "Well, I don't have free will so I might as well do option 'x'."  Besides, when you analyze any statement closely you will see that even in the absence of free will the thinker is acting as if they still have the free will to choose an option.  That option may be to "do nothing", but they still feel like they are making the choice to do nothing.

 

Free will and morality

One fear that some philosophers express is that if people believe they do not have free will, that they will behave differently, and that they will choose courses of action with worse outcomes for themselves and others.  And for some individuals that may be true.  Beliefs, which are coded as the algorithms in our minds, do affect actions.  A person that believes the world will end this year may choose the unhealthy food instead of the healthy food because that belief influences their choice.  Likewise, a person that believes they have no free will may, in thinking to themselves, "I have no free will to choose", choose the less healthy option.  Or, more broadly, say to themselves, "I have no free will therefore I am free to choose the less moral course of action."  This train of thought could be used to rationalize and justify the less moral course of action.  But it does not follow, that in the absence of free will, a person is more or less likely to choose a more or less moral course of action.  A person could just as easily deduce, "I have no free will therefore I am free to choose the more moral course of action."  The absence or presence of free will does not contribute to the better, worse, moral, or immoral course of action.

 

Free will and punishment.

Then why, you may ask, do people feel the need to discuss this topic?  Why is there a debate over free will?  The answer is that some feel it impacts how we hold others accountable for their actions.  It impacts the punishment we mete out to those who break the rules.  What if a bad person threatens harm to someone you care about unless you break your neighbor's window.  To protect the one you care about, you break the window, get caught by police, and go to trial.  At the trial you explain that you were forced to throw the rock, and the judge agrees that you did not have the free will to act and lets you go free.  If we don't have free will at all, couldn't anyone make a similar argument and say that they had no choice but to do what they did?  The answer is no.

 

Every action we take is partially influenced and controlled by things external to our minds, but some actions we take are primarily controlled by the algorithms in our mind.  If it appears that our action was primarily caused by the algorithms in our minds, and not forced by an external threat like the person threatening harm to someone we care about, then we need to be held accountable for the action.  For the good of society those people with defective brain algorithms must be restrained from living in the general populace.   Just like when we discover a machine that is malfunctioning and hurting people we disable the machine; so will we disable malfunctioning people by putting them into prison and/or treatment programs.  When we incarcerate people for crimes, the goal should be to re-habilitate those people, to alter their brain algorithms so that they are safe to release back into society.  But even if we don't think rehabilitation is possible for those individuals, we will still incarcerate and punish them because we want to alter the algorithms of everyone else in society to understand that the crimes the individual committed are not acceptable.  We also recognize that the brain algorithms of some individuals are too damaged to allow those people to roam free in our societies.  

 

Free will and remorse.

Some people believe that accepting that we have no free will liberates them from remorse for their past actions.  If I am texting while driving my car and I hit a squirrel in the road, and I believe that I have no free will, I might tell myself that I had no control over my actions and thus I should not feel remorse over hitting the squirrel.  However, the value of remorse is to improve our behavior in future similar situations, so if I suppress remorse then I am more likely to commit the same behavior in the future.  If I allow the remorse to flow I will be more attentive in future situations (less likely to text while driving) and thus be less likely to hit a squirrel in the future.  Remorse is an evolved trait that increases our ability to get along with others.  Too much remorse may be dysfunctional, as may too little.  But the conclusion to suppress remorse because you lack free will harms yourself because you prevent the alteration of the brain algorithms that will help prevent you from performing actions with negative consequences in the future.  You have no control over whether or not your belief that we have no free will also cause you to feel less remorse over your actions, but in reading the very words of these paragraphs your mental algorithms may have been altered which will affect your remorse calculations in the future.

 

I hope you found value reading my thoughts about free will.  I had no choice but to write the words above and share them with others.

 

The best video explaining QE (Quantitative Easing)

I've watched several QE videos but this is the only one that explains the topic clearly and accurately.  This provides a good explanation of the limits of QE and clearly points out that QE is not "literally printing money", and also points out that money is not just "handed out" to people to use for spending sprees, which would cause inflation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySm773uqZB8

Humans have not created Artificial Intelligence (AI). We have created Illusory Intelligence (II).

Humans have not created Artificial Intelligence (AI).  We have created Illusory Intelligence (II).  Let's start calling it II now instead of AI.

Many people criticize the term Artificial Intelligence because the machines we create lack the ability to think.  Here is one such article: https://www.analyticsinsight.net/ai-not-real-intelligent-artificial-intelligence/

I agree.  Some call for using the term "augmented intelligence" instead of artificial intelligence, but I don't like this term either.  If I get a chip implanted in my brain to help me remember the names of people, then perhaps that is augmenting my intelligence and "augmented intelligence" would be appropriate.  But software that translates words from one language to another, or that lets my car know that a bicycle is in the road in front of me, is not necessarily augmenting my intelligence.

I think a better term is "Illusory Intelligence".  Software that gives us the illusion that it is thinking and guiding us toward better action, but this clearly implies that it is not really intelligent.  Also, this phrase hopefully serves to remind us that, because it is not a real intelligence, we should not put total trust and faith in its recommendations and suggestions.  We must not allow ourselves to totally rely upon it to evaluate the information it perceives correctly.

Humans are the inadvertent result of the collection of genes in our DNA attempting to replicate themselves.

After recently reading, "The Ape that Understood the Universe: How the Mind and Culture Evolve", I was reminded of a very important truth I first learned in Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene":

If you want to understand the motivations behind human behavior, or the behavior of any animal, don't believe that the animal is interested in passing along its genes.  It is more accurate to say that the animal is the INADVERTENT RESULT of a collection of genes all selfishly seeking to replicate themselves.

• Obviously, when people have sex and procreate, they are not thinking, "I want to pass along my genes".  They do it because it feels good, and sometimes because they desire offspring.
• Genes do not have drives or purposes, they lack brains for such sophisticated thoughts.
• However, genes that do not increase the survival value to their hosts are more likely to eventually be eliminated by the process of evolution.
• A gene that makes its host want to commit suicide early in life will not get passed along because the host will have no offspring before dying.
• Genes that increase the chances the host will have offspring are more likely to be passed along.
• Genes that encourage having sex are more likely to proliferate.
• Genes that make the host more attractive to members of the opposite sex are more likely to proliferate.
• Thus, it is the collection of genes, and it is primarily genes that increase our ability to survive and have offspring, that will proliferate.  What WE ARE, is the result, the inadvertent result, of the collection of our genes that tend to increase our survival value and reproductive success.

That which we call 'Life' is, by a physicist, called a 'Phase Transition'

 That which we call 'Life' is, by a physicist, called a 'Phase Transition'

We go from a stable/steady state of 'non-existence', to a stable/steady state of 'death'.  Life, is the non-stable phase in between those states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition

 

What makes an act moral or immoral?

I've been reading a lot lately about morality and listening to debates about morality to prepare for a longer article on the subject, but I am increasingly coming to accept a very simple definition of what makes an act moral or immoral.  That definition is:

• If an actor knowingly fails to respect the quality of life of another when taking action, then the action is immoral
• If an actor alters their course of action to respect the quality of life of another, then the action is moral.

Note: most actions are neither moral nor immoral.

I think the people I get along with best, are those who share my delusions

The Velocity of Money. A Parable of Economics

The little frontier town was struggling.  People didn't visit much anymore.  Everyone was miserable because they were all in debt.

Late one evening a man walked into the hotel.  He wanted a room for the night.  The hotel owner, Conrad, was happy to see a customer.  It had been a while.  Conrad collected the $20 for the room from the stranger.  The stranger told Conrad that he had tools and sundry items for sale.  He wanted to know who might buy them.

Conrad told the stranger that the town was full of poor people.  Everyone was in debt and no one could afford to buy anything new.  The stranger would have better luck in the next town.  Disappointed, the stranger went off to bed.

Conrad was happy to be holding $20, but he knew he shouldn't use the money to buy anything from the stranger because he owed Morgan money for the whiskey that Morgan had been supplying to the hotel.  So, before he changed his mind, Conrad walked to Morgan's and gave him the $20.

Grinning widely, Morgan thanked Conrad and said he feared he might never get paid back.  The money was much appreciated.  Now Morgan could pay Mr. Pella the money he owed for the glass bottles he bought to hold the rum.  Morgan took the money over to Mr. Pella that very night and paid him.

Mr. Pella was very happy to get repaid because that allowed him to pay the Thomas brothers the money he owed to them.  Shane Thomas had sold Mr. Pella the sand needed to make the glass bottles, and Roger Thomas had sold Mr. Pella the wood needed for the fires to heat and form the glass.  He owed each of them ten dollars.

The next morning Mr. Pella found the Thomas brothers and paid each of them.

Shane straight away took his ten dollars to the innkeeper, Conrad, to repay him the money he owed the Conrad for the nights the Conrad let him stay at the hotel while Shane's house was getting repaired.

Roger was elated that he had finally gotten paid for the work he'd done.  He saw the stranger as the stranger was headed out of town and stopped him.  The stranger explained that he was a salesman.  He sold Roger a brand new ax, perfect for chopping down trees, for $10.  Roger was delighted with the new axe since his old ax could no longer hold its edge.  Roger would be able to get back to doing work with this new axe.

As the stranger rode out of town he thought to himself, "That innkeeper lied to me.  It seems like people in this town do have money.  I just sold an axe for $10 that I only paid $5 for, so this is turning out to be a good trip for me."

That very afternoon Roger used his new axe to cut down some old hedge trees that had long been a blight upon the town.  The townsfolk gathered in the evening around a bonfire of that hedge wood and sang songs and laughed and felt happier than they had in a long time.  No one was in debt.  Each felt unburdened and optimistic for the future.

Analysis:

What is it that makes an economy grow?  Does it make a difference, to the economy, if a person stores thousands of dollars in a coffee jar at home, spends the money on products and services, or puts it in a bank account?  What is the impact on the economy of each of those three actions?

This parable provides an example where the velocity of money is high, at least for one day.  A high velocity generally indicates a healthy society.  If something impedes the velocity, it can harm the economy. 

In our history, the use of money in the form of coins and bills increased the velocity of money over attempts to directly trade commodities such as grains and chickens for goods and services.  The move to digital currency and credit cards provided another boost to the velocity of money.  We can now send money anywhere in the world instantly.

To learn more about the velocity of money, I suggest starting here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. The Coronavirus impact on our economy offers an analogy.

Some people assume that evolution and "survival of the fittest" mean the same thing.  And sadly, some people use the phrase "survival of the fittest" to rationalize and justify the dominance of the one group of individuals over another.

One impact of society's reaction to coronavirus is that we reduced our contact with other people and visited stores like Walmart less often.  Many people turned to Amazon to buy products instead.  This could lead us to logically claim that Amazon performed better than Walmart because, according to "Survival of the fittest", Amazon was "more fit".  But there is a flaw in this claim that many people overlook.  The flaw in assuming that Amazon is "more fit" than Walmart is the implication that Amazon is more fit "in every way" than Walmart.  The flaw is to believe there is something about "fitness" inherent in the organization (or organism) that lends justification to saying one is "more fit" than another and thus their survival is more valuable or more important to the species than another.  "Fitness" is not a property inherent in specific individuals or organisms.  Instead, it is a relationship between that individual and the events of the environment they live in.

To clarify the distinction, let us imagine that coronavirus had not impacted our society, but instead, society experienced a different calamity.  What if the majority of our country lost electricity for several months?  If such a thing occurred, you could assume that Walmart would probably do better during that time than Amazon.  Following the same reasoning we used to decide that Amazon is "more fit" than Walmart during coronavirus, we would now reason that Walmart is "more fit" than Amazon during the electrical outage.  Therefore we can deduce that the quality of being "more fit" is not something intrinsic to the organization or organism.  It is a measure of the interaction of the qualities of the organization or organism and how it interacts with changes in its ecosystem.

So what is the point of this article?  The point is that we can't claim, after the fact, that one group survives and thrives because they deserve to survive and thrive because they were "more fit"; with "more fit" implying superiority over the other group.  We can only say that one group survives and thrives because they had qualities that allowed them to better respond and adapt to a specific change in the ecosystem.  Had a different change occurred in the ecosystem the other group may have survived and thrived.

Groups that seek to justify their ideas of genocide toward other groups often invoke "survival of the fittest", but I hope you can see that such reasoning is flawed.  In fact, I think you should conclude that if the survival of humanity is important, then diversity of humanity is important to increase the chances that some of humanity may survive.

And why, you may ask, is evolution not "survival of the fittest"?  The reason is that we can't apply the unqualified idea of "most fit" to an organism in order to declare that organism is most likely to be around 100 or 1000 years from now.  We can't identify "most fit" until after the events have occurred that lead us to the current organisms we have today.  We can only say that one organism or another is more likely to survive specify changes such as droughts, or diseases, or new predators or a combination of several factors.

Evolution is the result of the interaction of organisms responding to changes.  It has no forethought, no planning, no goals, and is not even predisposed to prefer life.  It does not look ahead.  Evolution is just a label we uses to describe what has come before and how it came to be.

Are most people silent in online public forums because they don't want to be criticized or offend?

The public forums of the Internet such as Facebook and Twitter increase our ability to communicate and share information with our neighbors. This increases our productivity and fosters collaboration that was impossible previously.  However, these communication forums come with challenges and one of those challenges is silence of the people.  In contrast to the negative aspect we attribute to this communication because it seems to enhance our willingness to be rude to one another, it also inhibits many from contributing at all because when writing in a public forum it is difficult to convey our true message.  When I write, I am unable to express my thoughts and feelings using body language, or use the intonation in my voice.  I am also unable to immediately observe a listeners reaction to what I am trying to say and adjust my words, body language, and intonation on the fly.  Finally, without meeting face to face and in person people seem less inclined to attempt to get along with the others in their presence.  Therefore, many people choose not to contribute to the public discussion because they don't want to anger others and be attacked by them when their message is misunderstood. 

I am not one of the majority that usually remains silent.  This is not because I hold strong opinions of which I am eager to defend.  It is because I believe some things need to be discussed and I am willing to make the attempt to hold a civil discussion even when I know I may be criticized.  Today I wrote a short post in a small community facebook group.  I need not need to make the post; it is not my responsibility to provide clarity to the issue; but I am willing to share what I truly believe and if I am wrong I am willing to be corrected.  I don't think most people do the same.  I think most people simply avoid a sensitive issue because we don’t want to build a wall between ourselves and our neighbors; and the best way may be to say nothing rather than to risk offense.

It was not easy to write that facebook post, even though the topic is very mild and not particularly sensitive.  But I desired to express myself accurately and without offense which required writing the ten line post, then reviewing it to correct grammar, spelling, and remove as much content as possible.  Also emoticons really help to try to convey that I want to be friendly and not hostile. 

We Judge Ourselves Not As We Judge Others

When I judge myself; when I reflect upon my actions and their consequences, I base my judgement upon my intent.  But when I judge the actions of other, I base it on the results of their actions.  If I favor those I judge, then I probably judge them based upon a presumed intent that led to unintended consequences; but if I dislike those I judge, I probably presume their intent was malicious or that they were too incompetent to gauge the consequences of their action.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor



Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.


Judge not lest you yourself be judged.