7 - Deep Ramifications

[MikeO]

Below is the latest mirror-reversal research, and it took an UNEXPECTED turn into areas of human consciousness and free will. This was a very big surprise for me. I’m only now, after many months, getting used to it.

The first item is a true story titled “A Tale of Two Riddles,” which fully describes this exciting new topic, and which is addressed to somewhat non-technical friends of mine, written in the Summer of 2015. So far, 6 Episodes are posted.

The second item “The Determinism Detour” is a much shorter paper written earlier, in late 2014. It is addressed more to Cognitive Scientists and people with some technical knowledge of the human brain and consciousness.

[MikeO]

A Tale of Two Riddles

Introduction

Dear Friends,

This is an experiment in writing.

Please peruse the following, which is
my soon-to-be-unpublished book.

This is an experiment in communication
on several levels at once.

It’s an attempt at communicating
a most complicated and difficult idea
involving the conscious human will.

Despite this topic’s great difficulty,
free will itself is a common everyday topic
of thought, conversation, and study.

Though used every day in common life,
the human will remains a mystery as to how it can work.

I’m testing here the understandability of a new perspective
that seems to solve the free will mystery.

***

A rare format is being used
that looks like poetry,
but is not.

This is a format experiment.

***

There are six Episodes in this adventure.

Episode 001 - Very Different Riddles
Episode 002 - Very Related Riddles
Episode 003 - Determinism
Episode 004 - Free Will
Episode 005 - Mirror Solution
Episode 006 - Free Will Solution


Thank you for reading.

MikeO

[MikeO]

Episode 001 - A Tale of Two Riddles - Very Different Riddles


This is a true story
about two very old
and very odd riddles,
and in this way
the two riddles are related.


But in many other ways
they are very, very different.


The first riddle is most trivial,
and the second is most profound.

The first riddle is too silly,
the second too serious.

The first riddle is just innocent child’s play.
The second threatens to toy with our minds.


Solving one seems
almost unworthy of our effort;
almost unworthy of its solution
the other can make us feel.


Two rival riddles:
one pointless, one hopeless.

The solution to the first riddle
would be worthless;
to the second, priceless.


There’s a pattern here.


The first riddle is merely an idle curiosity,
the second is steeped in cultural impact.


The first is so trivial
it can elicit responses like mild anger,
derision, and jeering laughter.


The second is so profound
it can elicit responses of mild despair,
of being overwhelmed, and a wistful laugh.


The insignificant riddle is anchored
at the simple end of everyday experience,
while the significant riddle floats a little beyond
the unfinished frontier of modern science.


***

I’m not speaking metaphorically here.
These are two down-to-earth,
well known riddles.

I’ll briefly state them now,
but a great deal of detail
is poised for later printing.

The trivial riddle is:

How can a mirror reverse left and right,
but not up and down?


The profound riddle is:

How can we have a free will
in the face of microscopic determinism?


The reason for this discussion
is a very recent discovery
and a very surprising discovery
that the trivial riddle
unlocks the profound riddle.


What I mean by “unlocks”
is that when the two riddles
are looked at in just the right way,
they can be seen
to have a common form.


The free will riddle’s solution
can then be seen
to have the same form
as the mirror riddle’s solution.


What this means is that
the profound riddle
can be understood
by first learning
to understand
the trivial riddle.

There’s a lot to talk about here.


***

But first,
a few notes on the format I’m using.
It looks a little like poetry,
but it’s not.


I’m breaking these lines up according to ideas. This is because the
discussion around these two riddles can get very complicated, so
formatting it this way makes each individual idea easier to digest. I
got this idea from a brilliant lady named Lillian Lieber, who pioneered
it back in the 1930’s. See how much harder this paragraph is to read
than all that proceeded? This format helps me write complicated ideas,
and I hope it helps you understand them. Lillian Lieber wrote some of
the most complicated books in the world in this poetry-like format,
dealing with the very deepest topics in Mathematics and Physics, and
they are still in print today.


Now watch this:


I’m breaking these lines up
according to ideas.

This is because the discussion
around these two riddles
can get very complicated,

so formatting it this way
makes each individual idea
easier to digest.

I got this idea
from a brilliant lady named Lillian Lieber,
who pioneered it back in the 1930’s.

See how much harder
this paragraph was to read
when using standard formatting?



This format helps me
write complicated ideas,

and I hope it helps you
understand them.



Lillian Lieber wrote some
of the most complicated books
in the whole world
in this poetry-like format,
dealing with the very deepest topics
in Mathematics and Physics,
and many are still in print, today.


Go Google her
and get impressed.


***

Now back to my story:

These two simple sounding riddles
are an entry point
to some very deep thinking,
and it’s fun to have a chance
to see them fit together.

I’ve been playing with these two riddles
for almost fifty years now,
and I’m not bored yet.

At the start
I had no idea the two riddles
were in any way related.

I was simply fascinated by both,
and finally lived to see
them both fully solved.

The mirror riddle got solved fast,
like in about five years,
but I couldn’t explain it well,
in a clear, convincing way.

The next forty years
with the mirror riddle
were spent in perfecting
and refining the answer
so that anyone could grasp it.

That was forty years of
of deeper and deeper insights
as to what was going on with mirrors,
and with people looking at mirrors,
and with people theorizing about mirrors.


The mirror riddle,
and it’s constantly improving explanation
proved to be
a very effective conversation starter,
and a great way to meet people,
especially in bars decorated with mirrors.


***

The free will riddle
went entirely different.


I was totally stumped.


My puzzling over how
we can have free will
in spite of determinism
was totally bogged down
for the first twenty-five years
in several fascinating
and learning-filled
dead ends.


For free will I had no answers,
no conversation starters,
and a depleting hope
that an answer was even possible.


Then,
after a series of major adjustments,
there was a very recent breakthrough.


So,
now I finally have a
conversation starter
for free will.


You’re reading it.


After privately communicating
all this with some friends,
I’ve been encouraged
to write it up for all.


***

[MikeO]

Episode 002 - A Tale of Two Riddles - Very Related Riddles


The trivial riddle is:
How can a mirror reverse left and right,
but not up and down?


The profound riddle is:
How can we have a free will
in the face of microscopic determinism?



After seeing, in Episode 001,
how much the two riddles
are opposed to each other,

now please hear
how much they are also similar.

In spite of their deep differences,
the two riddles are none-the-less related,
and in some very, very
interesting ways.


If,
as previously noted,
the trivial riddle will unlock
the profound riddle,
that, in itself, would put them
into a deep relationship.


There are many more ways
the two riddles are similar.

Nobel Laureates
have wrestled with both.

Neither riddle was EVER answered
to my satisfaction
by anyone.


Both riddles are clean and neat,
yet the standard answers to both
are never clean and neat.

Both can be over-explained by scholars
with a blinding blizzard of facts and figures.

Both riddles look easy at first;
but both prove to be very, very
hard nuts to totally crack.

Both riddles can be delicious,
but with vastly differing flavors.

Both riddles are unlikely
to ever attract much
research grant money.

No scientific theory needs
either one of them solved,
in order to make sense.

No machinery needs
either one of them solved
in order to function.


Both riddles can induce
a mini cognitive dissonance
when deeply pondered.


Both riddles
maintain their mystery
not long after
the best of explanations
are offered.


Both are pretty pure enigmas,
And, I am told,
have been around for centuries!


Both seem extremely intriguing
to a significant swath of the population.

Most people can understand both riddles,
and nearly everyone can say of them both,
“Hey! There’s something very odd here.”


A goal of this discussion
is to clearly see
the clean and neat solution,

and just exactly how
the trivial riddle unlocks
the profound riddle.


***

Just in case this unlocking
doesn’t sound shocking enough
(it really should sound shocking),
let me say it a little more explicitly:

the mirror riddle unlocks
the free will riddle.


This is a huge claim to make.


A short time ago
I would have thought it to be
a ridiculous claim.


It still often looks ludicrous to me,
but when I review the discoveries
and think it all through again
(as it is slowly being printed here)
it makes sense again.


Here is an alternate view
that can soften the incredulity,
and take off a few sharp edges:

the simple riddle unlocks
the complex riddle.


That looks like
a more workable idea.


It will all fit together soon,
so please hang in here
with me a while,
as I set up more of the proof.


Both riddles require
a special kind of thinking
in order to be solved.


It’s not difficult thinking,
just rarely attempted thinking.


But it’s easy thinking when
someone shows you
how and why.


***

So far,
since this solution is
a very recent development,
the best way I know to explain all this
is to re-trace my steps
as I first saw it.


After doing this,
and after getting feedback from others,
the explanation can then likely be
spiffed up and shortened.


An easy, clean and neat,
one page summary
of the mirror solution
can be seen at :
www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mirror_reversal_problem.html

A full treatment
of the mirror solution
can be seen at :
mirror-reversal.proboards.com/

The clean and neat answer
to the free will riddle
is in development here.


***

[MikeO]

Episode 003 - A Tale of Two Riddles - Determinism?



So, what the heck is determinism?

Determinism determines what happens.

Atoms are blind and mindless.

There are no
free will decisions made
at the low level of atoms,
according to the best of science.

And this is a very good thing.

From this blind obedience of atoms
we get a stable and predictable world.

Without determinism
bossing atoms around,
tables would not be solid
and water would not be splashy.

Without determinism
your phone would not work.

Nothing at all
would work right.

Without determinism
operating at the lower levels,
Annie couldn’t guarantee that
the sun would come out tomorrow.

So we all should love determinism,
those of us who like
to eat every day.

And scientists love it even more.
It makes their work possible,
and they make our lives better.

Sure camping is fun,
but only if
you can come home.


With the possible exceptions
of mad scientists and evil scientists,
we do pretty well
because of science.


When you get right down to it,
your auto mechanic is a scientist,
your hair stylist is a scientist,
and so are a huge number of others
in your life.


At the lower levels,
down in the biology level,
and chemistry level,
and atomic level,
determinism is a very useful thing.


Determinism is a name for
the ability of science
to sometimes predict
what is going to happen.


Because of determinism
both nature and science
are never whimsical,
and always consistent.


***


Determinism looks real good
in the lower levels
but up here at the top level,
it seems to be a problem.


The same way
it can push atoms around
it seems that
it can push US around also!


And who wants to get pushed around?


So determinism is a friend
when it’s confined to the lower levels
of mindless atoms and cells,

but up here at our level
it’s an enemy
that not only threatens
to bend our wills and desires,
it even presents an existential threat to us.


The big riddle is:

How can we have a free will
in the face of microscopic determinism?


If determinism threatens
the reality of our will
down to the details
of what we WILL TO THINK next,
then what’s left to be us?


Are we just wet robots?


In a nutshell,
the determinism vs. free will riddle is:

Who’s driving the bus,
you or your atoms?


We could move up a level,
to huge biological molecules,
but they are just as mindless
as the atoms that make them up.


Up another level to brain cells,
and we might ask
what is the IQ
of one of our brain cells?


Mosquito brains of many cells
are probably a lot smarter
than any one human brain cell.



At every level below
our top level of free will
our microscopic parts
(all of them, all the time)
blindly and accurately follow
laws of Biology,
laws of Chemistry,
laws of Physics.


Atoms determine molecular behavior,
molecules determine nerve cell behavior,
nerve cells determine the muscle cell behavior,


Oops!


I thought WE were the ones
determining our own muscle behavior!
Where does OUR behavior come in?


We ran out of parts,
and lost free will
in the process.


So,
who IS driving the bus,
you or your brain cells?
you or your molecules?
you or your atoms?
you or your … ?


Determinism comes from
a crisp, clear, scientific world
where crisp definitions are possible.


However,
the world up here
that houses human free will
is not so clear and allowing
of such crisp definitions.


***


Even if scientific determinism
is not your cup of tea,
we’re all affected by determinism
all the time.


And we’re all affected by science
and what scientists discover
and what scientists say,
and most of them
can’t say much
at all positive
on free will.


So getting a handle on determinism
can be useful in this technological age,
where determinism and/or free will
come up often
and in perplexing ways.


We humans often encounter
slightly hidden notions of determinism
in everyday life.


Discussions often take place
on issues like crime and punishment,
and determinism can be seen
lurking in the background.

Was he really guilty?
Or was it his genetics?
Or was it his brain washing?
Or was it mental illness?


We hear things everyday like
“It was the alcohol talking.”
“Have you taken your meds?”
“I’m not myself today.”

We go on diets
or try to quit smoking,
and a central life focus
quickly becomes free will,
and will power,
and factors that over-power will.


And there’s more.

Determinism happens
on the positive side as well,
in affairs regarding
credit, honor, and reward.


And it’s almost always puzzling.
No one has a handle on determinism.


The strongest forms of determinism say
that the future is already written
for absolutely everything,
including all of our decisions.

That’s pretty nasty!


***

Please note, though,
that determinism vs. free will
is NOT the same
as nature vs. nurture.

It’s more like
nature PLUS nurture,
BOTH of them versus free will.


***

Just in case
determinism doesn’t sound
like a terrible monster yet
up here at the top level,
let me try again.

Here’s a common atomic level
explanation of determinism:

The behavior
of every microscopic particle
in your brain
is determined by the laws of Physics
and whatever prior state
the particle was in,
and no decisions are involved.


Nasty!


Moving up some levels,
here’s a common neurological level
explanation of determinism:

Whatever brain-state I’m in now
was fully determined by
the brain-state I was in just prior,
and all my previous learning,
and no free will was involved.


Nasty!


How can this
scientific determinism gobledygoop
be true
when it doesn’t seem to pan out
in real life?


We all know
that SOME of the time
we can DEFINITELY make
SOME decisions.


Do you see why this riddle is so slippery?

Determinism can set up
a cognitive dissonance in this way.

It’s both a good guy
and a bad guy
at the same time.

We want to believe
in science
and we also want to believe
in our free will.


But the two don’t mix well.
It’s all turmoil and confusion,
the harder one tries
to figure it out.




That’s why this is such an old riddle.
The harder we try to solve it
the deeper it gets.


This is the deepest mystery of all science!


It’s the Holy Grail of Physics.


It’s an ongoing story
that no one
has been able to explain
cleanly and neatly.


***

I’d like now to give a short preview
of where this is going next.


About thirty years ago
a Philosopher named Daniel Dennett
had several great insights
that can greatly simplify
our notions of free will.

This will speed things up.


Next step
will be learning to see
the mirror riddle’s solution
in a certain way
that will be useful later
in viewing the free will riddle.


The mirror riddle tricks us
in a way that is similar
to the free will riddle’s trickery.

Both riddles trick us,
though in different ways,
to try and hold
two opposing thoughts in our heads
at the same time.

This is what cognitive dissonance is.


In Episode 001
the surprising range
of emotional responses
these riddles can elicit
was mentioned.


The special new way of thinking
about these riddles
is simply
to compartmentalize our thoughts,
and not allow
the opposing thoughts
to fight it out.


The solutions will dawn on us
after we first clearly see
WHY this compartmentalization
must be done,
and after we get
a little PRACTICE at doing it.


Explaining this WHY
is where I’m headed.

***

[MikeO]

Episode 004 - A Tale of Two Riddles - Free Will


Free will advocates bog down
by asking for too much…
WAY too much.

It seems
that many old attempts
to avoid determinism,
and find ways to make
free will plausible
involved finding loopholes
within science.

The hope was that these loopholes
could at least point
to free will,
and say it’s camouflaged
from scientific scrutiny.

In Physics,
the popular area
to look for loopholes
is quantum theory.

In Mathematics,
a type of uncertainty principle
can be found in Gödel’s Theorem,
and some look there
for determinism relief.

Some also resort to religion
and say free will
is not even physical,
but spiritual,
and therefore invisible to science.

Holding onto lots of hopes
everyone bogs down
in these pursuits,
because all this is overkill
and not needed.


THAT’s the insight
Daniel Dennett provided
in his 1984 book “Elbow Room.”


I found this book in 1992,
but I also found it
to be a difficult read.


But fortunately,
Dennett spills the beans
in the subtitle to the book which is:
“The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.”


This much
in the book’s contents
I could latch onto.


For me,
after making these adjustments
and pondering how much free will
was really needed,
and how much of it
seemed to already be there,
certain things became clear
that previously were murky.


***

Free will means being able
to operate an agenda
without too much interference.


Being biologically equipped,
we gradually grow
an internal agenda script,
or a set of principle desires
by which we conduct our behavior.


This agenda
or set of principles
can be called a creed
or a belief system.


For many people
there could easily be
several of these agendas
spliced together, and in operation.




It also seems that
we can re-write or edit
these scripts
of our Internal Constitutions.


To think
and then act
according to what
these scripts say
is equivalent to saying:
these scripts are what determine
our behavior.


But this is in conflict with this
which was posted in Episode 003:

Atoms determine molecular behavior,
molecules determine nerve cell behavior,
nerve cells determine the muscle cell behavior,


This the heart of the riddle.


It’s not solved yet,
but free will is now
getting more simple.


***

So,
how much free will
and what kind of free will
do we need to be free?

We want the kind of free will
that is able
to resist other wills.


What goes on
in the micro-machinery
of our own brains
is NOT in our focus
when the topic is freedom.

The focus is other wills
trying to determine
our behavior
and hamper our freedom.


***

It is a slow process
from infant to child to adult,
but eventually a free will emerges.


Not TOTALLY free
but somewhat free,
as Dennett’s insight guides us.


We want the kind of free will that is
able to edit our agenda scripts,
able to re-write our Internal Constitutions.

We want the kind of free will that is
able to grow in will power,
able to increase our degree of freedom
from other wills,
even from previous versions of
ourselves.


Free to change.


Dennett’s simplification is
to picture human will
with a relative freedom,
not an absolute mystical freedom.

In 2003
Dennett completely re-wrote Elbow Room
and renamed it “Freedom Evolves.”

It’s especially nice to think
that we can increase our freedom,
and this idea is illustrated
in Dennett’s newer “Freedom Evolves.”

It seems we should be happy
with an INTERNAL will
that is somewhat free
of important EXTERNAL forces.


How that internal will starts off
may be by accident,
and not choice,
but what gets built into it
can be more and more
by design
as that will develops.


We really just don’t want
to be pushed around
too much
by outside forces.


We want to think
that we act
on our own
internal program,
not someone else’s.


We want to think that
our thoughts are our own.


***

[MikeO]

Episode 005 – A Tale of Two Riddles - Mirror Solution

We’re at the threshold
of the solutions.
First the mirror solution
then free will.


Later, for the free will solution,
I’ll be using similar wording.

So this mirror solution
will be like a template
to later help in seeing
the free will solution.


***


One of the coolest surprises
about the mirror solution
is that it does NOT involve
any hard core science.


The mirror solution is
purely a people thing.


We human beings have in common
many innate skills and strategies
for dealing with difficult situations,
and the mirror riddle is pretty difficult.


Two such strategies,
or tools
come into play
with the mirror riddle.


We’re all very familiar
with both of these tools,
but giving them names
makes for quicker reference.


I’m going to call
these two investigation tools
a Sherlock and a Twistie.



We will soon see
that these tools
are in conflict with each other
in this mirror riddle.


This conflict is the secret
of the mirror riddle’s
resistance to solution.


In other words,
these two tools,
as good as they are,
for many life situations,
in THIS particular situation
(the mirror reversal riddle)
the two tools mess with each other,
and they also mess with our minds
as we ponder the mirror riddle.


In the free will riddle
we will also see
two useful tools
that come into a conflict.


***

Let’s set up the mirror scene:

Stand in front
of your bathroom mirror,
and you raise your right arm.


The Sherlock tool says
“Don’t move anything.”


This tool is the classic
Sherlock Holmes technique
for dealing with
a complicated crime scene.


The Sherlock tool says:

Guard the mirror setup
(you with one arm raised)
and then examine it AS IS,
moving nothing.

We can think
of this Sherlock tool
as keeping a “sure lock”
on the mirror setup,
with right arm raised.


***

The other tool,
called the Twistie
works in the following way:

Whenever we humans
need to compare
NEARLY IDENTICAL objects,
we usually prefer
to line them up first,
and have them face
in the same direction,
before we try
to compare them.


For example:

If you wanted to compare
two nearly identical pens,
would you hold one pen
pointing at twelve o’clock
and the other pen
pointing at three o’clock?


No,
you would want to
do a Twistie first,
by turning
one of the pens around
to face the same direction
as the other pen,
and THEN
you can compare them.


In the mirror setup,
(still got that arm raised?)
you and your mirror image
are NEARLY IDENTICAL,
except for this elusive quality
of “reversedness.”


So,
many of us want
to apply a Twistie
to the mirror setup.


But the Sherlock says
no twisting.


But the Twistie says
no facing
in wrong directions.


Conflict.

***

For the mirror,
most people can,
and eventually do
settle on the Sherlock
for solving the mirror riddle.


So,
they lock in on the mirror setup
(that arm getting tired?)
and then, methodically,
they start comparing
up and down,
left and right.


Applying the Sherlock tool
shows that the mirror
does NOT reverse
left and right,
NOR does it reverse
up and down.


Both heads are pointed up,
both raised arms are
on the same side
of the bathroom.


Sherlock says,
after comparing parts,
that only front-to-back
are reversed.

Your nose is pointing
in the opposite direction
as your mirror image’s nose.


The Sherlock tool is linear,
and methodical,
one-step-at-a-time.

But the Twistie
can be done mentally
in a sudden visual flash.


***

Remember,
the Twistie conflicts
with the Sherlock:

Twistie says move things,
Sherlock says don’t move things.


***

Twistie says:

Twist around
to face the same direction
as your mirror image.


You can use a crayon
to roughly sketch,
and thereby freeze
your mirror image,
(with arm raised)
before doing the Twistie.


Now,
in comparing parts
it’s easy to see that
left and right ARE reversed,
but not up and down.


This is where
the mirror riddle comes from:

people doing Twisties.



***


So,
Twisties and Sherlocks
conflict in their procedures,
AND they conflict
in their results.

Sherlocks say
NO left/right reversal;

Twisties say
YES left/right reversal.


***

It sounds complicated
but many people are very capable
of doing Twisties mentally.


When the Twistie
is done mentally,
in a sudden visual flash,
it can be totally unnoticed and subconscious,

but the left/right reversal
from such a flash Twistie
can make some kind
of vague impression.

After the flash fades,
capturing this process
in words
is VERY difficult.


So,
it is the case that
many people
ACCIDENTALLY
And UNKNOWINGLY
do Twisties.


This guarantees
for them
a nagging sense
of left/right reversal.


***

Twistie flashes can even occur
WHILE attempting to apply the
conflicting, one-step-at-a-time
Sherlock tool.


They can happen so fast
people don’t know
they are doing them.


A half dozen Twistie flashes
can occur while attempting to do
one of the Sherlock procedures.


When you agree with me
that your mirror image’s
LEFT arm is raised,
it’s because
you just did
a mental Twistie.


***

Some people have
a type of mental discipline
where they either
can avoid accidental Twisties,
or they can ignore the impressions
of left/right reversedness the Twisties make.


But for many people,
being interrupted several times
by mental Twisties,
while trying
to do a Sherlock
gives rise to
great mental confusion.


Sometimes,
after following and believing
a complete Sherlock proof
that no left/right reversal occurs,
a few minutes will pass,
and then a sudden
mental Twistie occurs.

Flash!
There’s that pesky feeling
of left/right reversal again.


***


The solution to the mirror riddle
is to become practiced
at using both
the Sherlock and the Twistie,

AND more importantly
to also to become
practiced in using them
ONE-AT-A-TIME,

AND not allowing
any mental drifting
into a Twistie flash,

AND understanding why.


The solution
to the free will riddle
will be similar.


***

Oh!
You can put
your arm down now.

[MikeO]

Episode 006 – A Tale of Two Riddles - Free Will Solution


Did you ever think you’d be pondering
some of the most complicated ideas
in the world?

If you’ve been able to follow
these Episodes I want to congratulate you.

Hardly anyone
ever thinks these things through.

Thinking can be an adventure,
but it can also be hard work.

Anything new is more difficult
than anything practiced,
so with practice
these thoughts
will get more fluid.


Like with the mirror riddle
we are now going to look at
two common human tools
that are used when
the free will riddle
is on the table.

However,
both of these tools
will prove to be
far more complex
than the Sherlock
and the Twistie.

I wish I had snappy,
one word names
for both of these tools,
like in the mirror riddle,
but I don’t… yet.


Maybe you can help me
to find better names later,
but for now,
I’ll give them temporary names.


I can also say that,
like with the mirror riddle,
there’s no hard core science
in HALF of the free will solution.


A full half of the solution,
will be a purely people thing.


***

We human beings have in common
many innate skills and strategies
for dealing with difficult situations,
and the free will riddle
is quite difficult.


Two such strategies,
or tools
come into play
with the free will riddle.


I’m going to temporarily call
these two investigation tools

a People-View tool
and
a Particle-View tool,

but better names
can be considered
later.


Both of these tools
are much more abstract,
detailed, and complex
than were the simple
Sherlock and Twistie tools.

However, just like with
the Sherlock and Twistie,
we will soon see that
these two big tools
are in conflict
with each other,
when the topic is
this free will riddle.


This conflict is the secret
of the free will riddle’s
resistance to solution.


In other words,
these two tools,
as good as they are
for many life situations,
in THIS particular situation
(free will vs. determinism riddle)
the two tools mess with each other,
and they also mess with our minds
as we ponder the free will riddle.


***

Let’s set up the scene:

The People-View tool
is what we all learn
beginning as babies.


From early infancy
we learn body parts,
body actions,
and we learn about food
and elimination.


We learn to recognize faces,
as well as voices and intonations,
and eventually we learn
that there other wills
out there that
sometimes thwart
our newly forming will.

When we deal with other wills,
one of the earliest things we learn
is that we don’t always get our way.

We also learn early
that people can lie,
so dealing with
deliberate falsehoods
becomes part of
the People-View tool.

Coming to expect
that another human
has thoughts similar
to our own thoughts
slowly becomes second nature.


Comparing these thoughts
via verbal communication
is how I see this
People-View tool
growing in strength
during our early years.


***

What I had in mind
when I named
the Particle-View tool,
was dirt.


I was thinking of how
at very early ages
we learn that
dirt is not people,
and is to be cleaned off
and gotten rid of.


We also quickly learn that
the ground outside
that we walk on
is made of dirt.


Daily learning includes
how food can be cut into
smaller and smaller pieces,
and that chewing food
does the same thing.


We also quickly learn that
we can make things
out of dirt,
and also that
things can be broken down
into dirt or junk
or smaller pieces.


Eventually we learn
that toys break
and turn into junk
and smaller pieces.


These all are
the beginnings of
simple science.


It’s much like the opening scene
in the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey,”
but instead of apes and bones
progressing to weapons to science,
it’s toddlers and dirt
progressing to mud pies to science.


We’re all scientists,
but not all of us
dive very deep into it,
or stick with it very long,
and hardly any of us
ever get paid for it.


But the basic
procedures and attitudes
of hard core scientists
can often be seen active
in teenagers living everyday lives.


The reason
I’m focusing on science
is because that’s where
determinism comes from.


***

I don’t believe we start building
this simple science Particle-View tool
at birth,
like we do
with the People-View tool.



Though it probably starts out
very early with dirt,
I can’t see it going strong
until some decent language skills
are learned.


Scientific knowledge is built
by many people
via language.


We all use
this simple science
Particle-View tool
but negative associations
often cause many to limit
its full blown development.


Remember,
in an earlier episode
I mentioned that
your car mechanic
and your hair stylist
were scientists?


We all engage
in some scientific thinking,
and we all use
the Particle-View tool,
but we usually don’t
make a big deal out if it.


What’s most important
to us here
about this tool
is the conflict it has
with the People-View tool,
in this particular topic of
free will versus determinism.


This will be illustrated soon.


***



In using the Particle-View tool
we use the technique of analysis,
which means cutting things up
(literally or figuratively)
into smaller pieces
and looking at
all the parts
that make up the whole.

The People-View tool never involves
cutting other people up
into pieces,
hence the term “individual.”

Psychotics may confuse the tools
at times like this,
but not normal people.

Sometimes,
we will switch
from the People-View tool,
to the Particle-View tool,
and try to figuratively cut up
another will into pieces
so that it can be analyzed.


But this is usually
not very accurate,
and not appreciated
by that other will,
and we learn
to minimize
such behavior.


The Particle-View tool
works well for dirt,
and for things and objects,
but not for people.


***


The Particle-View tool
never involves
trying to communicate
with whatever we have put
into a test tube,
because it’s dead.


Sure, science looks
at living biological organisms,
and beings similar to us,
some communication may take place,
but not when the parts are looked at.


The deeper science looks
into how matter works,
the smaller and smaller are the parts,
and the more simple and lifeless
are the parts.


It’s not that they’re dull and uninteresting.
They do have their beauty and fascinations,
BUT they’re far, far more simple
than the worlds of life, people, and thoughts.


This is also why
I used the word “particle”
in the name.


Eventually the word “atom”
comes up.


***

Another big difference
between the two tools
is honesty.


For several hundred years,
science has taken the stand
that nature can never lie or deceive,
and this assumption has worked out
pretty darn well.


I’ve never known
of anyone to challenge it.


So,
unlike with the People-View tool,
when using the Particle-View tool
we never have to deal with lying atoms.


Only people can lie well.


A few animals and plants
have crude deception abilities,
but nature, in the micro,
is the epitome of honesty.


Deception just never comes up
in the world of micro particles,
and nature simply cannot lie,
nor even make a mistake,
nor even be sloppy.


Lying requires a lot of intelligence,
with systems and sub-systems
to support it.


***


It’s a very tight world
we see when using
the Particle-View tool.


It’s a world that’s
way TOO tight
to support free will decisions,
and that’s the reason
determinism seems to threaten
us in these matters.


Atoms don’t have a will,
and they can’t
change their mind.


They always obey.


Their world is simple this way.


***


The People-View tool is SUBJECTIVE.
It’s for the subjects in the kingdom.
It’s personal.


The Particle-View tool is OBJECTIVE.
It’s for the objects in the kingdom.
It’s impersonal.


***



Tabulated below are some
qualities,
or attitudes,
or activities,
or participating agents
involved with these two tools.


First,
some poles
they are apart by.


On the left: People-View;
on the right: Particle-View:

whole – parts
smart – stupid
profound – trivial
advanced – primitive

Unique to People-View are :
life, language, love, family,
respect, civilization, lies.

Unique to Particle-View are:
precision, predictability,
repeatability, determinism


Each tool
can be thought of as
a set of special vision goggles
equipped with special interactive abilities,
like Humanities Goggles
and Science Goggles.


These two tools
are SO VERY different,
that a neat, simplistic way of
describing their conflict
is to say they are pointed
in opposite directions.

Facing North,
the view that can be seen
is TOTALLY different
from the view seen
facing South.

The two directions
are mutually exclusive,
in that looking in one direction
prevents viewing the other direction.

That’s what these
two tools are like
with respect to each other.


***


Science and its Particle-View tool,
have been very successful
for about four hundred years,
largely because
the HUMAN ELEMENT is
systematically stripped out
from all of its
attitudes,
and activities,
and participating agents.



But the HUMAN ELEMENT
is what the People-View tool,
is all about!


This means that
the Particle-View tool,
BY DESIGN,
pretty much ignores
all that is seen with
the People-View tool.


And the plot thickens:


The People-View tool
totally ignores the micro world,
the world determinism comes from.


The resolution and quantification
of our human senses
are too poor
to engage in micro experiences.


All of the participating agents
and all of the activities
of the micro world
are an unrecognized blip
to the People-View tool.


Meanwhile,
Science and its Particle-View tool
is ALL ABOUT extending its view
far beyond what
human senses
and the People-View tool
can engage in.


***

So,
the People-View tool
and Particle-View tool
are figuratively aimed in
opposite directions.


They even oppose each other.


What the People-View sees
can not be seen
by the Particle-View.


What the Particle-View sees
can not be seen
by the People-View.


They are completely different ways
of looking at the world,
of tinkering with the world,
and of explaining situations in it.


The views they produce
are ALSO mutually exclusive.


This is a very strong difference.


***

Another great difference
between these tools
is repeatability.


One way science deals
with lies and sloppiness
is by stripping out
all data that’s not repeatable.


The great surety of science
comes largely from repeatability
being a part of the Particle-View tool.


Repeatability, though,
whenever a human brain is involved,
is not nearly as reachable an idea
as it is in the micro world.


Doing a controlled experiment
with people
is not the same kind of thing
as a controlled Physics experiment.


Surety is not a part
of the world we see
with the People-View tool.


Nothing with people
can ever exactly be repeated;
only approximately.


So,
repeatability is
impossible in human affairs,
and necessary in scientific affairs.


***

We can’t see determinism
in the people world
with the People-View tool.


We cant see people
in the determinism world
with the Particle-View tool.


The two tools face
in opposite directions!


***


The solution to the free will riddle
is to become practiced
at using both
the People-View tool
and the Particle-View tool,

AND more importantly
to also become
practiced in using them
ONE-AT-A-TIME,

AND not allowing
any mental drifting
from one to the other,

AND understanding why.


To ask
“How we can have free will
in the face of microscopic determinism?”
is trying to mix two antagonistic views
into one thought.



Solving the riddle comes
by learning to not drift
from the human world
containing free will,
over to the science world,
containing determinism,
because it produces turmoil
through the conflicting tools.


This is not trivial.


Few of us
are very disciplined
at such compartmentalized thought.



Some are,
and they may ask,
what’s all the fuss about?



But for most of us,
learning to think through
each tool’s unique view
ONE-AT-A-TIME
is very new.



So,
the baffling nature
of the free will riddle
is directly due to us
UNKNOWINGLY trying to fit together
two fundamentally antagonistic worlds.



***


Imaging a person
having a difficult time
understanding why
it is impossible to see South
while facing North.


Such a person
would have to be
totally unaware of
the simple geometry
that facing North cuts off
all of the view of the South
BECAUSE they are opposite.



This person needs
to be taught
that facing North
and facing South
are mutually exclusive,

and then it is possible
for this person to be content
with seeing each view
ONE-AT-A-TIME.



We can become content
with a solid knowing that
WHILE we are thinking about our free will,
we must WAIT on bringing up determinism.



Learning to see
that determinism and free will
are valid within their own worlds,
but meaningless when
intruding in another world,
is very new to us.



***



Is THAT all there IS?


Yes.



***

However,

if
there is any doubt
or lack of clarity
that the Particle-View tool
and the People-View tool
are opposites,
that they deeply OPPOSE each other,
that they are mutually exclusive,
that they are
COMPLETELY different ways
of looking at the world,

then
this answer will seem lacking.



To the degree
that the two tools
can be seen as opposites,
like facing North and facing South,
then learning to think about
free will and determinism
SEPARATELY
will become
a satisfying
answer.



This degree can be increased,
and the next Episode will address this.


Also, there are advanced ways
to dimly see free will,
far off in the distance
while using the Particle-View tool.


There are also advanced ways
to squintingly see determinism
way down underfoot
while using the People-View tool.


These advanced ways of thinking
will also come up in the next Episode.


In the meantime,
we can become
more and more satisfied
with this solution by


(1) getting practice seeing
the two tools as opposites and

(2) getting practice at resisting
the urge to quickly switch tools midstream.


Have fun
as the solution emerges
from this small disciplined effort.


***

[MikeO]

***************************************************************************
Item Two:

. The Determinism Detour

Alternate Titles:
Determinism and Free Will – Together Again for the First Time
Determinism and Free Will – Together Again for the Last Time
Determinism .vs. Free Will – An Harmonious Antagonism


This paper will propose an analogy that can clarify the compatible natures of determinism and free will.

This analogy is an extension of some ideas presented in Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” and Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves.” As per Dennett, I’m thinking of the kind of free will “worth wanting,” and not cluttered by “totally free” ideas, so I’ll just call it “will.”

The word “level” refers roughly to the LEVELS of EXPLANATION in scientific complexity, with the bottom or lower levels describing microscopic particles, and the upper or top levels describing the human mind. This hierarchy of explanations is a human construct, and seems not yet fully understood. However, the ideas expressed here do not lean heavily on the fine points of how all the levels work. We need only, here, to be focusing on the extreme ends of this hierarchy.

The top (or upper) level referred to is the level of the writing and the reading of this text. The bottom (or lower) levels referred to here as “microscopic particles” could be quarks, protons & electrons, molecules, or even nerve cells. All the shades of gray in between need not concern us here.


***


A simple, obvious, and assumed top-level reality is that we can have a real conscious will, with some limited but real powers of causation within this top level. Yet this basic everyday reality can be suddenly disrupted by simply remembering the deterministic nature of the lower levels. When determinism pops into this upper level picture, the reality of our own minds and wills can suddenly come into question. For some thinkers the idea that conscious reality is merely a “useful fiction” is not enough to float their boat. This is what drives many to seek a solution to this determinism riddle or, as I like to call this baffling mental disruption, the determinism detour.

Sometimes, after fighting to regain top level reality, the detour pops up again, and even still again through several more such cycles, and eventually on to exhaustion. It’s a baffling disruption of an otherwise clear set of pictures; each level being simple by design. It can be summed up by this riddle question “How can I have a real will if determinism is also real?”

***

A method for solving this problem can be found by imitating the solutions for two other riddles that involve a similar disruptive popping of mental states, resulting in baffling confusion over issues that are otherwise clear. The first of these two riddles presented here will be extremely easy; the second quite difficult. By comparison, the determinism riddle looks to be even still more difficult.

The first riddle is a Necker Cube. It’s a visual riddle. At first, to an inexperienced viewer, it looks very simple and easy to interpret. But then it starts popping one way, then back the other way. It’s baffling for a while, but then with experience, it becomes possible to lock onto one interpretation, and resist the disruption of the other, opposite interpretation. This is important: the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, and contradictory. The solution to the Necker Cube Riddle is recognizing that there are two valid interpretations, and that each interpretation can only be visualized separately, one at a time.

The second, more difficult riddle is the classic mirror reversal riddle: how does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down? At first, it looks like it should be easy. Most people can quickly accept a valid proof that left and right are not actually reversed, and that only front-to-back are reversed. However, this surety can suddenly vanish for some people in a subconscious flash of mental imagery. This imagery of an equally valid left/right reversal interpretation pops into mind, and disrupts the clarity of the previous proof. The riddle resists solution because it is much more difficult to capture into words this second, usually short-lived, interpretation.

Understanding the mirror riddle interpretations comes by recognizing that people commonly have two excellent, YET ODDLY CONTRADICTORY strategies for comparing nearly identical objects. An object and its mirror image are nearly identical, except for “reversedness.”

The first strategy produces the front/back reversal interpretation by comparing the object with its mirror image as is, without moving anything. The second strategy (which usually pops in as a short subconscious flash) produces the left/right reversal interpretation by comparing the object with it’s mirror image AFTER rotating them so that they face the same direction. The two strategies contradict each other; the first says don’t move anything, the second says do move things.

Like the Necker Cube, the two mirror interpretations are mutually exclusive, and contradictory. Like the Necker Cube, the baffling mental disruptions can be halted by learning to lock-in and think through each mirror comparison strategy one at a time.

***

So, the Necker Cube and the mirror riddle seem to resemble the determinism riddle in interesting ways. All three exhibit some similar characteristics in their unsolved phases: a clear picture is disrupted by another clear, but contradictory, picture.

The determinism riddle involves a clear, lower level picture (determinism) popping in to disrupt a clear, high level picture (will). Like the other riddles, the two simple clear pictures are mutually exclusive, and contradictory in the determinism riddle.

The top and bottom levels are OPPOSITES. They deeply oppose each other. They contradict each other. Here’s why: the bottom level is stripped of the human element, while the top level IS the human element. The top level ignores microscopic particles, while bottom level IS microscopic particles.

The top and bottom levels are completely different ways of explaining things.

The method of solution for the Necker Cube and the mirror riddle can now be applied to the determinism riddle by learning to think through each level one at a time. This is not trivial. Scientists have not yet devised rules for jumping from level to level. We do it on any whim. Learning to see determinism and will as valid within their own levels, but meaningless when intruding in another level is new to us.

***

So, I'm a Compatibilist in that I accept determinism and wills as equally real.

However, WHILE discussing or even thinking on the top level of wills, the notion of determinism is NOT compatible, i.e., it goes against the notion of the levels being explanatory in that it clouds things at the high level. So, they are both real, but not valid in a mixture on the same level. They are mutually exclusive in how they deliver explanations.

Determinism doesn’t belong at the will level. It’s obviously out of place. It’s as much a stranger at the top level of human wills as is the cuteness of a kitten in quantum mechanics.


***


Summarizing all three riddles:

The Necker Cube Solution:
It looks paradoxical to an inexperienced viewer as depth perception pops back and forth. The two views are mutually exclusive, contradicting each other in that one view goes this way and one the other way. But as the viewer gets experience, the paradox can pass by learning how to view each Necker mode one at a time .


The Mirror Riddle Solution:
It looks paradoxical to an inexperienced viewer as “reversedness” perception pops from front/back to left/right. The two common mirror comparison strategies are mutually exclusive, contradicting each other. One demands movement, and the other demands NO movement. But with experience, the paradox can pass by learning to mentally view each mirror comparison strategy one at a time.


The Determinism Riddle Solution:
It looks paradoxical to an inexperienced viewer as the feeling of a real will vanishes into a sea of mindless particles, upon being reminded of determinism. It’s a popping back and forth that resembles this: “I have a real will; I don’t have a real will.” The two level-pictures are mutually exclusive, contradicting each other. But with experience, the paradox passes by learning to view each level of explanation (top level wills, bottom level particles) one at a time.


***

This kind of mental discipline may have been easy for the Necker Cube, and a bit more difficult for the mirror riddle, but for the determinism riddle it’s MUCH more difficult. Without this discipline, confusion results from trying to use two contradictory and mutually exclusive perspectives (top level vs. bottom) simultaneously. This confusion is literal in that it is a “fusing” together of things that should not be joined.

In all three cases “mutually exclusive” implies that, if mental chaos is to be avoided, separate operations are REQUIRED, that one-at-a-time handling is REQUIRED.



***


This is worth repeating:

the top and bottom levels are OPPOSITES.
They deeply oppose each other.
They contradict each other.

The bottom level is stripped of the human element,
while the top level IS the human element.

The top level ignores microscopic particles,
while bottom level IS microscopic particles.



***

Here is a one page summary of the mirror solution:
www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mirror_reversal_problem.html