[spapsinee]

dear friends,

http://www.realitysandwich.com/super_free_will

be well, be love.

david

super free will: metaprogramming and the quantum observer
paul hughes

contrary to popular belief among most brain scientists today, i will argue that free-will not only exists, but ultimately is all that remains in an ever changing, uncertain universe. in order to understand the body of my argument, we’ll need to delve into quantum physics, skinnerian behaviorism, neurological imprinting, brainwashing and metaprogramming.

here is robert anton wilson’s definition of von neumann's catastrophe of the infinite regress.

a demonstration by dr. von neumann that quantum mechanics entails an infinite regress of measurements before the quantum uncertainty can be removed. that is, any measuring device is itself a quantum system containing uncertainty; a second measuring device, used to monitor the first, contains its own quantum uncertainty; and so on, to infinity. wigner and others have pointed out that this uncertainty is only terminated by the decision of the observer.

what this means, and has been proven time and again in experiment after experiment, is that without a conscious observer, quantum states remain uncertain and in a state of indeterminacy. it is the conscious observer that makes the uncertainty wave function collapse out of an either/or “maybe” into something "real". no experiment has yet been able to remove this observer from the results. therefore without consciousness, there is no wave function collapse, and no "reality". scientists, including einstein have been fighting this conclusion for more than 70 years, when he said, “god does not play dice”, but experiment after experiment has proven this to be the case. the aspect experiment in 1982 and its dozen follow up experiments have reproduced this non-local consciousness dependent result. this is most troubling to determinist materialists as it goes against their training and every other working scientific theory. yet the power of quantum mechanics has made itself known in almost every field of technology and industry.

so why hasn’t this shattering revelation made greater waves through the scientific community? i honestly don’t have the answer to that, other than history is full of old paradigms dying slow, hard deaths. so rigid in their thinking are people (and therefore scientists), that as thomas kuhn, the author of the book the structure of scientific revolutions (1962), said, "the triumph of a new paradigm may therefore depend as much on this generation’s dying off as it does on decisive confirmation or refutation, as more traditional philosophies of science understand such things." this is an important point, which i’ll get back to in a bit.

meanwhile, as our understanding of the brain has increased, we have been able to isolate and tie numerous psychological functions to deterministic brain chemistry. tweak a molecule here, get a psychological effect there. apply an electrode there, get a psychological effect here. this has led most neuroscientists and cognitive researchers, including the likes of francis crick, to conclude that any conception of having free-will is an illusion. francis crick says,

all your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free-will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

he is only partially correct, as we shall soon see.

[Sarah Armstrong]

hi light-eye

well well, this "nothing-butness"-attitude is slowly fading away, and from a dialectic perspective, the tippingpoint/ revolution of mind will come, no doubt about that.

liliane