💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › freewill.asc captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:37:48.

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-





                (word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
                      Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
                           Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
                                    PO BOX 1031
                                Mesquite, TX 75150

                       There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
                  on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
                                files on KeelyNet!

                                 February 24, 1991

                                   FREEWILL.ASC
       --------------------------------------------------------------------
             This file courteousy of Double Helix BBS at 212 865 7043.
       --------------------------------------------------------------------

            We all seem to have the belief that we live in a world ruled by
       knowledge of what  is  right,  and  that  mankind,  as  a  whole, is
       advancing because of this. In other words, greater knowledge and
       understanding is accumulating daily in all the disciplines of study;
       we discover first the laws of physics, then we invent the airplane,
       now we gain deeper insights into ourselves and the world through the
       arts and humanities.

            Our civilization, now more than  ever  before, places a premium
       on the excavation of knowledge and the means by which that knowledge
       is excavated. What  this  all  seems  to imply is that  this  should
       propel our civilization  onward  to  a  better  way  of  living,  of
       governing ourselves and running our  society.  The more we know, and
       the more we apply our ways of knowing, the more advanced  we  should
       become. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

            The reason  for  this  is  we  haven't developed a criteria for
       deciding, in an objective fashion, what is *right*. The argument I
       propose is that for any given situation,  a  set  of  rules  can  be
       adopted which will determine the *proper* course  of  action  to  be
       taken. If these rules, having been determined to be the best course
       of action, are followed, then we can advance, if decisions are not
       based on such rules, then the wrong course of action is taken, and
       we fail to advance.

            The difficulty  then, is in determining the proper set of rules
       or criteria by which to act, while  abandoning  the  improper  ones.
       Such rules will undoubtably differ depending upon the  situation for
       which they are formulated, but commonalities should run through all.
       Civilization, as it  exists  today,  abounds  with these rules; they
       tell us that  nature  acts  in particular  ways,  which  are  seldom
       violated, and that we and the systems of government  which  rule  us
       must act in particular ways, or else risk punishment or change.

            However, these  laws  are  not  used  to  guide  us,  either as
       individuals, or as a society, in  making  decisions  and determining
       plans of action.

            What is used instead is the simple judgement of the individual,
       or the mass judgement of many individuals in the form  of a vote. It
       is through these two means that our future as a civilization is

                                      Page 1




       determined. The problem  is that we place greater faith in free will
       and personal judgement when the  decision  is  to  be  made  by  the
       individual, and on the democratic process when the decision is to be
       made by a group, than on the rules.

            Let us start at the level of the individual. Everyday, each of
       us faces numerous   decisions,   some  of  which   are   of   little
       consequence, others which  will  change  the  course  of  our  lives
       depending on their outcome.

            How are these decisions made?   Well,  it appears that we think
       of all the possible actions which we could take, and  then  evaluate
       what the outcomes  of  these  actions  are.  The  outcomes  are then
       evaluated in terms  of  those  which  are  most  beneficial  to  the
       organism.

            One plan  may  save  time, another money, another  effort.  The
       organism concludes, for example, that it would rather stick with one
       of the possible  plans over another because it considers its outcome
       the most beneficial.

            In order to illustrate this,  an  example  is  needed.  Let  us
       suppose that after breakfast, you consider what you plan on doing
       for the day. You know that you must study, go grocery shopping, and
       visit the bank, but are expecting an important call sometime late in
       the morning. What should you do?

            A set  of  rules  can  be followed in such cases  to  make  the
       correct decision, if  all  the  possibilities are specified, and the
       outcomes, in terms of their beneficence  to  the organism are known.
       If we abbreviate  studying  S, groceries G, and bank,  B,  then  the
       possibilities are as follows:

                                     Figure 1.

            possibility    criteria satisfied     beneficiality
                                                (1-best, 4-worst)

              1) SGB           CE, not T............. 2
              2) SBG           CTE................... 1
              3) GBS           TE not C.............. 2
              4) GSB           neither CTE........... 4
              5) BSG           T not C or E.......... 3
              6) BGS           TE not C.............. 2

       We next impose an order of beneficiality on the possibilities, by
       forming constraints.

              The first  constraint  we  have already mentioned, and is the
              telephone call.

              The second is that going  to  the  bank  cannot  be performed
              last, because it closes early.

              The third  is that it is a waste of both effort  and  gas  to
              leave the house, come back, and leave again.

            If these  are the only constraints and possibilites, making the
       correct decision becomes possible. We see that choice 2 is the best,
       because you stay in to receive the call, get to the bank on time,

                                      Page 2





       and waste neither gas nor effort in leaving and returning only once.

            Choices 1, 3 and 6 are second best, because in each you satisfy
       two of the  constraints, but not the third, time being sacrificed in
       1, and the call in 3 and 6.

            Choice 5 is third best, because  only  the  time  constraint is
       satified. 4 is  our  worst  choice;  none  of  our  constraints  are
       satisfied.

            If we  abbreviate our 3 constraints as C for making the call, T
       for having the time to get to the bank, and E for the effort, either
       of car or person, then which of these possibilities satisfy which of
       these constraints may be illustrated  in the second column of figure
       1.

            Most people, in making such a decision would have decided which
       they thought constitued the most important of the criteria, and
       would have simply studied first, in giving the phone call priority,
       or gone to the bank first and came back if giving this ultimate
       priority.

            The point  of  this  example  is that all the criteria  can  be
       satisfied and the best decision made if the possibilities and the
       criteria are known. In other words, the more we know about these
       important qualities of the decision, the better the decision we are
       able to make. Obviously, as decisions become more complex, so do the
       means of solving them efficiently. But this is just the point.

            Most people, in performing even the simplest of decisions, fail
       to follow any such ideal process or rule, either giving one criteria
       ultimate importance, or  not  using  any  criteria  at  all, as when
       emotion or instinct form the basis for a decision.

            The way in which theories are formed in science also fail to
       show any sort of systematicity, or rule-governed behavior. This is
       especially intriguing, because it  is  the  job  of  the sciences to
       describe nature according to these very principles.

            Scientific theories have traditionally been either  accepted or
       rejected on the   basis   of   inductionism   and  falsificationism.
       Inductionism is the process of reasoning  from  particular empirical
       results to more abstract, generalized ones. Falsificationism  is the
       process of rejecting  theories  by  proving them wrong, also only on
       the basis of empirical evidence.

            Pursuing science in accordance  with  inductivism is profoundly
       damaging in that  it  leads to the acquisition of  vast  amounts  of
       observational and experimental   data   devoid  of  any  theoretical
       interest or importance,  while  falsificationism,  because  it  only
       allows empirical evidence  as  grounds  for  falsifying   a  theory,
       excludes all non-empirical    means,    such    as    philosophical,
       metaphysical and methodological considerations from science.

                (see Maxwell, 1976 and 1984,  for  a  complete criticism of
                 these methodologies  and  of the way in which  science  is
                 conducted, also  see  Kuhn,  19?? for a good discussion of
                 scientific progress)


                                      Page 3





            Other problems exist in the sciences. One is that in trying to
       explain their field of study, scientists often fail to address large
       issues. After tackling a smaller problem in the field which they
       hope will shed  light  on  the  larger  issues,  they  often  become
       absorbed by these smaller issues,  failing  to  relate  them  to the
       general issues of  the  field  as  a  whole.  This   results   in  a
       fragmentation, in which scientists end up formulating models for
       particular phenomenon, without regard to the functioning of these
       phenomenon in relation to the larger systems of which they are a
       part, and the other systems with which they must interact.

            Even worse, scientists have, in the past, decided the course
       with which science    progresses   through   personal   choice   and
       popularity. A new theory, even a good one, is always slow in being
       accepted by the scientific community.

            Frequently, older theories will  continue to be relied on, even
       though newer, competing ones can better explain the  data. A case in
       point is the  development  of  Einsteinian  physics during the early
       part of the 20th century.

            Einstein's theories were scoffed  at  initially,  because  they
       were so different,  but were eventually accepted because  they  were
       better able to  explain  the  physical  phenomenon. One wonders what
       would have occurred had the opinion of the scientific community been
       less in his favor. Thus we see that  a  true theory may die, because
       the scientific community  as a whole, votes to support  a  different
       one.

            This method  of 'voting', where the majority of people favoring
       one issue decide the outcome in favor of that issue, constitutes the
       second means by  which  decisions   are   usually  made.  Individual
       scientists, in making  their own decisions as to which  theory  they
       favor, may decide  its  future.  Those with the greatest reputations
       play a greater stake in this, but the overall number in each of the
       opposing camps is just as important.

            We have already seen that individuals are usually incapable of
       making correct decisions, because they fail to take into account all
       of the information, as well as the pros and cons of each piece of
       information, in order to perform the appropriate evaluations and
       conclusions. Are we to let science be run by the whims and decisions
       of a few people?

            If one person is unlikely to  make  a  correct  decision,  then
       increasing the number  of  people having to make the  decision  does
       nothing to increase the likelihood that the correct decision will be
       made, because more  people  will  make  correct  decisions,  but the
       number of people making incorrect decisions also increases, with the
       net result no more appoximating the truth.

            In fact, the situation is made  even  worse  when  a  number of
       people together vote  on  an  issue  by taking sides,  because  many
       individuals become swayed by the opinions of others.

            This process of voting to make decisions is hardly limited to
       the realm of science. We see it everywhere. In the legal system, a
       person is proven  innocent  or guilty by a jury of 12 men and women,
       where the sum of their decisions determine the verdict.

                                      Page 4





            In government elections, the sum of the decisions by the people
       determine who will  run  the  country. In all these cases, decisions
       are made subjectively, through the pooled opinions and decisions of
       the many.

            Clearly, something should be done about how decisions are made,
       such that mankind may benefit and progress. If we have learned
       anything at all in this information age, it should be how to use the
       vast amounts of information and problem-solving skills we have
       acquired, and apply them to these decision making processes. It is
       the decisions which we, as people, make which determine our lives
       and whether or not we ultimately progress as a civilization.

            Therefore, what  I  propose  is  that  we  develop  methods  of
       decision making which will permit us to overcome these inadequacies.

            To begin,  personal  decision-making could benefit  from  early
       instruction. Different methods of problem-solving could be taught to
       children and then practiced on in-class examples. In this way, more
       objective and logical   evaluation   skills  could  be  learned  and
       engrained early on, so that as adults, such thinking would come more
       easily.

            Such training might emphasize  the ways in which emotions might
       interfere with, or  cloud our decisions, and ways  in  which  to  be
       aware of, and prevent such interference. Too often, the curricula
       in our schools emphasize the memorization of facts over the training
       of analytic and critical thinking.

            Also, there have been proposed new methodological means for how
       science should go   about  its  business.  Dobson  and  Rose  (1984)
       elaborate on a  model  which  eliminates   many  of  the  previously
       mentioned problems of   scientific   advancement.   Their   proposal
       consists of the following stages:

           1)  Define the problem or phenomenon to be studied. If we are
               interested in  studying  the  visual cortex, then a complete
               definition of what the visual cortex is and does, as well as
               its relations with other brain  areas, needs to be accounted
               for. This all-inclusive definition must be  agreed to by all
               those studying it.

           2)  Formulate  an  exhaustive  range  of  functional theories to
               explain the  phenomenon  in  question.  Since  all  possible
               models should be built and tested, we need  a way to prevent
               the numbers of these models from becoming infinitely large.

           3)  Discriminate  among models starting first at the highest, or
               most abstract, level of explanation, and then work downwards
               on more  specific models.  For  example,  one  theory  might
               explain very  well  how  we  perceive  a  number  of  visual
               illusions, but  less well the more general phenomenon of the
               visual cortex, such as pattern recognition, locomotion, etc.

           4)  After finding out which low-level specialized models are
               successful and which are  not,  the  merits  of higher-level
               solutions can be assessed and appraised.  In  this  way, the
               success of  more  specific  models  can serve as feedback to
               determine which of the higher level models are best. This

                                      Page 5





               stage alone  can  eliminate  the  tendency for scientists to
               become focused on smaller issues.

            Through this process, we will eventually come to one or a few
       models which will best describe the phenomenon in question. Theories
       at any level in this process can be evaluated against each other
       according to a number of criteria:

           1)  Efficiency - again, sticking with the example of the visual
               cortex, the most efficient  model  would  be one which would
               require a   minimum   amount   of  information   processing,
               biochemical energy  required  to work it, and amount of gene
               space demanded to reproduce it.

           2)  Reliability - how well does  the  model function in the face
               of adverse, or difficult conditions? Here, we could build a
               connectionist model, introduce random informational  'noise'
               into the  inputs or circuitry and then measure the extent to
               which the model's ability  to  perform  its overall function
               deteriorates.

           3)  Simplicity  -  models  should  be  no more complicated  than
               neccesary.  A  model with fewer parameters should be favored
               over one with more.

           4)  Developmental  coherence  -  can  the  system  develop  from
               previous stages?  This  is  especially  important  when  the
               theory is  driven  from  an  evolutionary  or  developmental
               standpoint.

           5)  Working coherence - do the  subsystems  which compromise the
               system work   cooperatively,   or   'pull    in    different
               directions'?

           6)  Logical coherence - does the sytem function in the same
               metaphysical state  as  other models of related systems? For
               example, does this model of visual processing work according
               to the same fundamental principles  as  the  similiar  model
               which specifies auditory processing?

           7)  Completeness - how much of the phenomenon in  question  does
               the model  cover?  It  can  explain orientation selectivity,
               sure, but  can  it explain  spatial  frequency  selectivity,
               aftereffects, etc.

           8)  Empirical  evidence  -  does  the  evidence   obtained  from
               experimental work support the theory?

            Thus we see that there do exist models for systematically
       determining choices. Of course even these models in no sense permit
       us to come up with the *right* choice, but they do enable us to more
       closely approximate the truth, and in reaching a decision which is
       certainly more *correct* than those obtained through individual
       choice or votes.

            The idea here is that we can come up with working models, which
       can themselves later  be  modified  after we have learned more about
       them through use.  These models may  differ,  depending  upon  their
       application.

                                      Page 6




            For example,   the   methods  for  making  personal  decisions,
       deciding among scientific theories,  determining guilt or innocence,
       electing government officials, running the government  itself  etc.,
       will all differ,  although they should contain some common elements.
       We have already  seen that the following  principles  will  play  an
       important role:

           1)  Define  the  problem  -  if  all  that  is   needed  is  the
               performance of  3 tasks, as in the personal decision problem
               given at the outset of this paper, then the tasks themselves
               define the problem. In trying  to  discover  how  the visual
               cortex functions, though, defining the problem space is much
               more difficult.

           2)  Enumerate  all  the  possibilites or theories  -  again,  in
               working within  a limited domain, as when given 3 tasks, the
               number of possibilites is mathematically specified, but when
               dealing with more complex  issues,  this  number  may become
               infinite. Even  one theory may be split up  into  an  almost
               infinite variety, if subtle changes are introduced.

           3)  Establish   criteria  by  which  to  distinguish  among  the
               possibilities or theories - this is  a tricky issue, because
               in some  instances,  or  depending   upon  your  theoretical
               viewpoint, some criteria become more important than others.

           4)  Discriminate among the possibilities or theories using the
               criteria to arrive at the single best or several  best  - if
               we arrive at a tie, then how do we decide what is ultimately
               the best?

            Clearly, then, what I suggest for the future is the adoption of
       these 'decision-methods'. An important task for the future is to
       discover such methods, elaborate upon them, improve them, and adapt
       them for use in particular domains. We put too much faith in free-
       will, and in  our  ability  to  make  choices, using only our innate
       abilities, and only   further    complicate    this    problem    by
       institutionalizing free-will in the process of a democratic vote.

            What is  needed is an objective system of decision-making  free
       from subjective biases.  This is the take home lesson that we should
       be receiving from this age of information and technology and method,
       but is one which we blatantly ignore.

       --------------------------------------------------------------------
       Vangard Notes...

            This paper  is  highly  reminescent  of  the  political  system
            devised in  the  40's  and  which was known as  the  TECHNOCRAT
            party.

            The TECHNOCRATIC  movement  believed that ALL government should
            be run by Scientists and Engineers.  This would ensure that all
            operations of Supply and Demand  would  be optimized to achieve
            their most  efficient  mode  through  the  use of  mathematics,
            cycles, statistics and all aspects of the sciences.

            It was  a  most admirable system not only because it sought the
            greatest good without the acquisition of power or the inflation


                                      Page 7





            of ego,  but  even included members of the ministerial ranks to
            assist in decisions relating to moral issues.

            We have a very rare book about  the movement which will someday
            result in a file detailing some of their proposed methods.

       --------------------------------------------------------------------

       REFERENCES:

       Dobson & Rose. (19??). Models of the Visual Cortex.

       Kuhn. (19??).       The Structure of Scientific revolutions.

       Maxwell, N. (1976). What's Wrong with Science? Bran's Head Books,
                           Middlesex.

       Maxwell, N. (1984). From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the
                           Aims and Methods of Science, Blackwell, Oxford.

       --------------------------------------------------------------------

         If you have comments or other information relating  to such topics
         as  this  paper covers,  please  upload to KeelyNet or send to the
           Vangard  Sciences  address  as  listed  on the  first  page.

              Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
           Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
                             Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet

       --------------------------------------------------------------------
                     If we can be of service, you may contact
                 Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
       --------------------------------------------------------------------


























                                      Page 8