Social Skeptics bear the habit of hiding what it is they are seeking to promote. They accomplish this misrepresentation through terminological equivocation and the employment of club signature intimidation words. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand what a person means when they utter certain words, and ensure that the words are not being implied as club weapons to enforce specious religious doctrines. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand their own employment of such words, and exercise the use of them in a context of ethical clarity; to disarm the social inference that such words mean more, than they really do. To err in either regard is the source of all fanaticism.
Say What You Mean
Social Skeptics erroneously influence their acolytes through misleading them as to the meaning behind the terms they employ, and the nature of the underlying philosophy entailed. They believe that their use of the terms evolution, atheism and science affords them immediate scientific gravitas and a perch of correctness. When a person slings around the terms evolution, atheism and science, for me this is not tantamount to an immediate free pass into the graces of trustworthiness. I regularly encourage the Social Skeptic vulnerable among us to understand what it is indeed that they mean, by the terms they employ. Clarity is one of the consequentialist goals of Ethical Skepticism. If you represent critical thinking, science and rationality, then one would be hypocritical to not employ complex terms in a frame of meaningful reference. Otherwise the terms are simply used as a weapon of pretense and intimidation. I use the words evolution, atheism and science – therefore anything I say is scientifically correct, and I have an entire cadre of bullies available to back me up if I so choose. This is not science, it is a hypo epistemological process of fraud.
As an Ethical Skeptic, if I am to continue inside a discourse of life and meaning with such a person, I need to know if they really understand what they are saying when they spout off the words so frequently uttered by their ‘mentors.’ I really need to know what they mean by
Evolution – do they mean speciated diversity of life through the generational culling of environmentally stimulated allele changes?
Or …do they mean that life sprang up on Earth through abiogenesis and random primordial ooze, therefore we are simply a one way genetic expression machine which has deterministically resulted in the fluke illusion of consciousness? The former fact is science, the latter argument is a highly separate religion – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘evolution.’
Atheism – do they mean a personal ethic of not commenting or concluding around this undefinable construct called ‘god?’
Or …do they mean that they hate (and habitually apologize around this) anything to do with a certain religion, its adherents and any idea that a magical bearded entity poofed the universe into existence in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Do they really mean that they choose to venerate Material Monism, and an existential lack of any innate purpose to this biosphere Earth, or any other similar events which occur in our Universe? Really, because I am not sure how one derives such a conclusion. I did not possess their enthalpy laden spaceship, that much psychic clairvoyance, nor that much time, in order to determine such an extraordinary claim myself. The former choice is an ethical action, the latter argument is a highly separate religion called Nihilism – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘atheism.’
Science – do they mean both the body of accepted knowledge and the method by which we objectively qualify and build that knowledge?
Or …do they mean screaming about a selective set of physical measures which target confirmation and methodically avoid falsification of a specific religious understanding of the world around us? Do they mean an ontology protected through a non acknowledged Omega Hypothesis (the hypothesis which is developed to end all argument) masquerading as the ‘null hypothesis,’ through an inverse negation fallacious approach – and therefore socially enforced as truth? The former definition is science, the latter argument is a highly separate religious hypoepistemology – often protected by and conflated inside the club weapon word ‘science.’
Science is also about clarity, value, disciplined thinking and trustworthiness. When you hear me use the words above, I mean the former and not the latter in each case. If I attempted to imply the orange ontologies in the chart below, as scientific truth – I could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning – from such a display of dishonesty. Passing off one’s ontology as a science, constitutes not only pseudoscience, but is a Wittgenstein Error (Epistemological) as well. Be wary of those who can do such without conscience. Be very wary of those who can not only look at themselves in the mirror after promoting such fraud, but aspire to celebrity in the process as well. The incorrect use of these words abrogates your claim to represent scientific thinking. Say what you mean – and you will gain the respect of those who truly understand philosophy and science.
Mean What You Say
If you join a movement, organization or philosophical movement – do so because you really understand and really mean and believe those tenets which are promoted by that movement. Don’t do so because you desire to appear as smart and scientific, or need some kind of self affirmation and acceptance, pep rallies or the rush of shaming others whom you regard as beneath you intellectually or socially. Such dispositions render one vulnerable to being manipulated by celebrity and malevolent influences. Otherwise, you are living what is called a Lie of Allegiance. If you, quietly over a couple beers, will soften your stance and reflect on a whole series of doubts you carry – but must hold in abeyance – then you are living a Lie of Allegiance. People in churches do this to make their families happy. People in Social Skepticism do this, and worse, in order to gain acceptance to that club. This personal foible is anathema to the Ethical Skeptic.
/philosophy : self understanding : cognitive dissonance : error/ : mistaking one’s fanaticism or being ‘hardcore’ as positively indicative of the level of understanding and commitment one possesses inside a philosophy or adopted belief set. The reality is that being fanatical or hardcore indicates more one’s dissonance over not fully believing, nor fully understanding the nature of the belief tenets to which they have lent fealty.
A fanaticist is different from a fanatic. A fanatic simply loves a particular subject or brand. A fanaticist on the other hand employs their outward extremism as a cover to hide an unacknowledged and suppressed inner cognitive dissonance.
A useful tool in Social Skepticism, the Lie of Allegiance, keeps the faithful unified and aligned in playing select activist roles. A Lie of Allegiance is often promoted through one-liners, weapon words and circularly quoted propaganda, initially deployed by celebrity SSkeptics, and enforced by the faithful, looking for purpose power and reward. It relies upon the ignorance of its participants, leveraged through the application of pep rallies and the pummeling of effigies of evil opponents. This is why the acolytes and trolls of Social Skepticism often focus on politics and persons, and not science itself. They either do not fully understand, nor do they fully believe, the philosophy to which they have lent their fealty.
This inner dissonance, prompts what we observe as fanaticism.
The Lie of Allegiance
1. The origin of fanaticism. The core argument which binds together a group on one side in a false dilemma.
2. A core philosophy (such as Nihilism or Material Monism) which is masked by a differing but similar and more attractive cover philosophy (such as atheism) because of the cover philosophy’s generally more acceptable nature.
3. A principle which is not fully regarded as truth by many or most of the members of a club of adherents, rather is adopted as a preemptive compromise in order to gain acceptance in that club. A principle employed only as the default, Omega Hypothesis, or battle cry agenda around which to combat those on the other side of the false dilemma argument. The measure of adherence to the Lie of Allegiance principle is more a reflection of disdain towards those of antithetical positions, than it is an expression of rational conclusion on the part of the adherent.
i. Many of the proponents in a Lie of Allegiance based organization, do not fully understand their Lie of Allegiance, nor perceive its contrast with the cover philosophy to which they in reality adhere.
Example: Most self proclaimed atheists cannot coherently frame the difference between atheism, skepticism, agnosticism, naturalism, nihilism, ignosticism, monism, materialism, tolerance and apatheism.
ii. Many members involved in a Lie of Allegiance do not in reality care about the specifics of the teaching under which they profess fealty. Specific psychologies involving the Ten Pillars are at play inside the binding power of the Lie of Allegiance.
Example: Many self proclaimed atheists wear the badge as a result of an emotional state, rather than a discriminating choice of conscience. This renders them susceptible to Nihilist’s, who use rally cries and the pummeling of christian issues in effigy, as a way to enlist the emotional allegiance of those who have poorly rationalized their ontology.
Social Skeptics bear the habit of hiding what it is they are seeking to promote. They accomplish this misrepresentation through terminological equivocation and the employment of club signature weapon words. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand what a person means when they utter certain words, and ensure that the words are not being implied as club weapons to enforce specious religious doctrines. It behooves the Ethical Skeptic to understand their own employment of such words, and exercise the use of them in a context of ethical clarity; to disarm the social inference that such words mean more, than they really do.
I look at myself in the mirror each morning, and I like and respect the guy I see there.
People are leaving religious affiliation in droves. Indeed, almost 18 million persons over the last seven years in the US alone left the faith on a statistical basis.¹ But only a slim margin inside this conversion base† is filing into the comparatively paltry ranks of atheism. Just who are these people electing this third option, the “nones” as they are titled by the Pew Research Study pundits? Why were Social Skeptics shocked at the results, and why do their shrill voices continue to pretend that this enormous and fastest-growing demographic group in the United States, does not even exist?
In fact, these numbers, countermanding the 150 year old false dilemma under which we have all been trained, belie a more staggering statistic that as much as 65% of the United States adult demographic has something other in mind than simply “atheism” versus “believing.”
What is this “other” category, and what does it comprise? Perhaps they, and not the material monists, big-A Atheists and Nihilists, are the real free thinkers and skeptics? As a true skeptic, I want to know what this new and growing demographic has in mind. I want to know why they are leaving traditional religion AND are resoundingly rejecting atheism at the same time.
Based on the recently released Pew Religious Landscape Research Study on America’s changing religious makeup, significant unrest is afoot inside the ranks of United States adult demographic. Of the 245 million estimated adults comprised by the 2014 US population base, a staggering 50 million of these individuals have elected to opt out of both atheism and religion. A full 26% of the US adult population makes no comment on the issue of a ‘god’ and instead has chosen some form of different path from the polarizing mind trick which has enslaved American ontology for close to two centuries.
Who are these people? Just what manner of change is precipitating this gargantuan shift in the mindset of American adults? Well, one thing is clear, the shift is either stemming in part from or is closely associated with new information technologies. Technologies embraced and influenced by the youngest of our demographic. According to the Pew Research Study,
“While many U.S. religious groups are aging, the unaffiliated are comparatively young – and getting younger, on average, over time. As a rising cohort of highly unaffiliated Millennials reaches adulthood, the median age of unaffiliated adults has dropped to 36, down from 38 in 2007…”¹
Perhaps this is why Social Skepticism has taken such a great interest in changing the way in which information is ranked inside Google searches? Do they feel they are losing the battle at hand? Or surely this must all simply stem from the “War on Science?” Yes, that must be it! Heck, at least the churches, mosques and temples for the most part are not apparently threatened by this information technology change. But Social Skeptics are threatened by these changes; highly threatened. Interesting… and perhaps now we see here why. This is worth scientific consideration.
Both Atheism and Religion are Losing Ground to the “Nones”
The new and existing demographic are not embracing the false dilemma (mandatory selection inside a bifurcation fallacy) of religion or atheism. Just what then are they embracing? Certainly agnosticism (and very likely ignosticism) is represented in this count according to the study results;¹ to the order of 30% more persons in total than atheism itself. But both these tallies of atheist and agnostic, taken together, account for less than a quarter of all those who indicated that they are “unaffiliated.”¹ The new ontology, apparently free information based as it should be, is not enriching the collection plates of Nihilist or Fundamentalist alike. Perhaps Fundamentalists should join Skeptics in the Pub to drown their sorrows about losing the battle for the American mind. They can commiserate over their slipping grasp on controlling this old argument. But to my perception an idea set is winning. It just does not have coherence yet; and to my best suspicion, is exciting to a great number inside this demographic. But this is science yet to be conducted, so I can make no substantiative claim therein.
It is remarkable really how persons who are religiously disconnected, reject the notion of calling themselves ‘atheist’ even when prompted with the chance to anonymously do so. On the order of 8 or 9 to one, they exhibit a distaste for the moniker. Why a distaste for either categorization? Is it attributable to apathy? Or is there something else, which we are not acknowledging, which is dawning on the ontological consciences of American adults, and especially our new adults? As an ignostic atheist myself, I want to know.
Finally, how many persons inside the 71% percentage points of the religiously affiliated, indeed sympathize with these ignored but latent new understandings on the part of the unaffiliated? It is incumbent upon real researchers that we begin to understand this ‘unaffiliated’ group, the philosophies to which they do affiliate, and the currently influenced religious ‘in-transition’ demographic. Why they are leaving in droves (or are about to leave†)? Why do they remain unconvinced by material monists, Atheists and Nihilists while in their religious exodus? Why are Millennials not adopting atheism either?
In general, Social Skeptics are getting the fact that a decline in religiosity does not immediately portend an increase in atheist rolls. In fact they have no idea what is driving this change in demographic, nervously citing the results as a victory. The pseudo-victory is quickly glossed over, dodging the ominous fact that these numbers might indicate something they fear even more than religion – people actually becoming activists, seeking that science be done – rejecting Nihilism – intolerant of dogma – and smart enough to distinguish the difference; even on tough and controversial issues. They are visiting the credulous websites, viewing the disdained videos, they are asking the forbidden questions. They are not intimidated with how ‘rational’ you are. They put credence in eyewitness testimony and a mountain of ignored ‘anecdote.’ They want research, not pre-cooked answers, and this does not bode well for Social Skepticism. The Center for Inquiry understates the results of the Study in the graphic above.
Note that the realization that this group in transition ‘aren’t all atheists‘ Ξ in reality to a 9 : 1 trouncing and rejection of atheism as an alternative to religion on the part of the “nones.”‡
According to Encyclopedia Britannica and the traditional surveys they cite,² Fundamentalism, or the literal interpretation of one’s choice of religion, of all types, composes anywhere from 25 – 32% of the United States demographic adult population.² If we back this figure conservatively out of the ‘affiliated’ sample of respondents in the Pew Study, even if we attribute the top end 32% or one-third of the US population as being characterized by Fundamentalist traditional beliefs of all faiths, we end up with a whopping 65% of the population which is considering something else.
It is this something else which I, as a skeptic, want to understand.
I condemn or prejudge no one in these groups, save for those who are violent or seek to oppress others and squelch freedom of thought, education and speech. Were we to identify these oppressive and violent groups, we would have to demarc a very thin sliver of the population overlapping both the atheist and fundamentalist portions of the graph to the right.
As a true skeptic, I want to know more about this unheralded and latent group set, and why they have chosen to reject both of the bifurcated ideals which have been artificially forced upon them from their youth? Under the Scientific Method, when the right question is asked, I feel the next methodological and deontological question to pose is “Who are these people, and what is it that they believe?”
Without the asking of that question, are we really performing science here, or simply a 150 year old form of bandwagon entertainment?
† please note that the term ‘leave’ incorporates statistically both those in the Pew Research Study who have changed their individual allegiances regarding religious persuasion between 2007 and 2014, as well as those we have lost by attrition and have been replaced by the new generation of adults inside that same timeframe.
‡ please also note that I think this aversion to atheism stems from a malpractice of atheism on the part of Social Skeptics. Those who enforce Nihilism and material monism on others, but mistakenly refer to their beliefs as ‘atheism.’ Perhaps this, in as much anything else, explains the overwhelming public aversion to the term atheist.
There is Another Path to Consider: The Rejection of Dogmatism and Fear
The third pathway in all this, which is being given rhetorical short shrift vis-à-vis poll questions formulated from an 1800’s mentality, is the pathway I call Ethical Skepticism. Now of course that terminology is not in the common vernacular and neither can I make the claim that these 50 million adult Americans are now choosing the pathway of Ethical Skepticism. They are not. But I can cite a case for research along the lines that the thinking inside this group bears some very common characteristics with Ethical Skepticism. Research which makes the following substantiation for further, more philosophically savvy investigation regarding the new mindset dawning on modern Americans.
1. I reject Fundamentalism because it is a low information set, high in condemnation and dogma, and extracts money by means of the resulting fear of the unknown. I reject this for ethical reasons. I also understand that dogmatic denial of the unknown can stem from non-religiously generated fear as well. Overly assured regard of what one holds as ‘truth’, with or without personification by a bearded grandfather icon, is not necessarily indicative of a philosophy developed independent of fear.
2. I reject Material Monism and Nihilism for now because they are operating on only a little more information than is Fundamentalism, in the grand scheme; yet the dogmatism is still disconcertingly high. Why? I just left dogmatism being used to generate fear and make money. Should I not hold off on jumping into another dogmatism, until we all as a species know more information?
3. The empirical evidence, scant or ephemeral as it may be, is NOT confirming Material Monism nor Nihilism; in fact is predictive in its falsification of both. I await more information however. I hear the clamor from ‘Big-A’ Atheists about the fallibility of the mind, perception and memory. But, I am not ready to start drawing their conclusions and dogma until I know more than simply a collection of one-liners.
4. I do not hold the answer, save to say that I know that I no longer have to live in the past four millennia of ignorance.
5. I know this is a shocker: But I do not have to even want an answer. In a low information environment, both nihilism and fundamentalist dogma are sometimes an attempt to force an answer-from-want, spawned by such urgency. The universe is not going to crumble in despair and hellfire, simply because I cannot comprehend its extents.
6. The observable universe appears to be regulated by a cohesive set of laws which serve to bring us into being. I must trust that the philosophies which underpin such rigor – continue on further beyond the horizon of that which we can comprehend, much less observe or measure. I am not equipped to judge an intent (nor lack thereof) with the information set I now possess. Nor is this lack of information indicative of some form of shortfall or lack of faith on my part.
7. There is much much more that we don’t know, than we do know.
“If a consensus of experts agree that a sufficiently defining function set M describes you, then M can be uploaded to a computer, and M is you.” Or so it is claimed and assumed on behalf of us all by the Nihilist. This philosophical principle is the litmus test which distinguishes the Nihilist from the atheist and any form of philosophy or religion mutually excluded by Nihilism. The atheist does not comment on this axiom, and the anti-Nihilist dissents (although such dissent is spun as being ‘religious’ by the Nihilist). By declaring that I can simulate you, to such an extent that my simulation indeed is you, I have displaced any need for any observer which brings you into true coherency, other than myself. I have eliminated the possibility of Free Will in the universe. I am now, by means of Turing Sufficiency, god, plausible propter hoc ergo hoc solus.
What a Surprise, Two Studies Misrepresented by Social Skepticism
The tautology presented in the opening summary, along with the equally tautological neuroscience (exaggerated Haynes and Libet Studies)¹ of observing the brain to conduct activity prior to human perception of its cognitive selection processes, is central behind the idea that consciousness, self, free will and Shermer’s Free Won’t, are all artifices we perceive from an illusion of neurofunction.² The illusion of self governance is substantiated in essence upon solely the neural duality of M+n neuron bundles observing M neuron bundle functions, and continuing so forth. This plausible propter hoc ergo hoc solus argument (I can conceive of the human brain constituting a Turing Sufficiency, therefore it is proved to be a Turing Sufficiency) stands as the litmus test of belief in religious Nihilism. And it hinges solely on what we define and perceive to be the existence of, free will/Free Will. And not simply human free will, but Free Will itself. The debate is summed up in a 2008 article confabulating the much touted Libet and Haynes measurements in Nature, The International Weekly Journal of Science:³
But the experiment [Haynes’] could limit how ‘free’ people’s choices really are, says Chris Frith, who studies consciousness and higher brain function at University College London. Although subjects are free to choose when and which button to press, the experimental set-up restricts them to only these actions and nothing more, he says. “The subjects hand over their freedom to the experimenter when they agree to enter the scanner,” he says.
What might this mean, then, for the nebulous concept of free will? If choices really are being made several seconds ahead of awareness, “there’s not much space for free will to operate”, Haynes says.
But results aren’t enough to convince Frith that free will is an illusion. “We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,” he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds.
Part of the problem is defining what we mean by ‘free will’. But results such as these might help us settle on a definition. It is likely that “neuroscience will alter what we mean by free will”, says Tong [Frank Tong, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee].³
Moreover, Benjamin Libet himself opined in his celebrated paper’s conclusion:¹
…why not adopt the view that we do have free will (until some real contradictory evidence may appear, if it ever does).
And further, from the Soon/Heinze/Haynes’ study itself:¹
This [10 second] delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision…¹
In other words both studies cite that they are presuming, petitioning as sponsors that this case of advanced computative pre-cognition should be considered alongside its antithesis. HaynesLab is a technology measuring lab, and does not hold the qualification to make psychological assessments. As such, the stark possibility exists that we have asked the wrong question, in order to derive the answer we seek. A very nasty and consistent habit of Social Skepticism. Neither of these authors however is making the claim that the brain is making the decision in advance; rather, they are simply opening the pluralistic set of Ockham’s Razor research to look at the issue. An Ethical Skeptic loves this, as this, and not the social epistemology fable spun around it, is the way science actually works. They firmly cite that this advance computational basis simply could reside solely as well, in ready-schema (see graphic on right); that is an abstraction of the protocols and psychology of a decision, while being watched, in ready memory, of the decision parameters in advance of the making of the decision.¹ A second aspect of this is that all the in-advance brain activity occurred in the prefrontal cortex; the location where abstract ready-schema resides. If the prefrontal cortex had already made the decision before the person perceived it, then there should have been in-advance activity in the Limbic/motor system as well, yet there was none.¹ The scans just as readily support the idea that the conscious mind held decision making, or at the very least, veto-holding authority over any Limbic trigger or motor control.
Social epistemologists like Sam Harris and Michael Shermer, or including Kerri Smith author of the Science journal article³ cited herein, routinely ignore these facts cited in the studies, as well as actual conclusions of the authors of these studies.¹ Libet goes so far as to even cite that Ockham’s Razor would dictate that free will stand as the null hypothesis until empirical threshold is surpassed by further study.¹ Social Skeptics, as they have done here, routinely toss scientific method aside once it no longer supports their religious proclamations. What? What is Ockham’s Razor? It suddenly no longer exists, once the ‘simplest explanation’ no longer supports the Church of Nihilism. The Ethical Skeptic is not saying that all this conjecture is incorrect; rather simply pointing out the sleight-of-hand magic employed as a pretense and presumption of science.
There does exist however, in response to the Nature article’s lament by Frank Tong, a definition of Free Will. One which resides in a future relying upon a Turing/Deutsch/Wolfram computational context, which we will examine below. One which the social epistemologists of Nihilism are already hard at work attempting to develop conclusions for in advance. This destination religious principle of the dismissal of Free Will (in itself a recursive tautology), a delusive interpretation of the prefrontal cortex’s exhibiting activity in order to establish a working-schema inside of which to make a selection in a circumstance in which it has surrendered its free will, is a prerequisite before one can be accepted into the Church of Nihilism.
Unequivocal Framing of Human free will and Turing Free Will
These mythical foundations, like much of what is promulgated by Social Skepticism, are based in actual science, philosophy and computation. In this case insight developed by none other than famed mathematical and computational biologist Alan Turing, and herein expressed in David Deutsch’s excellent work, The Fabric of Reality.† Nonetheless, this liturgy of miracles (Constructs 1 – 3 below) stands as fiat knowledge stemming from an occulted non-scientific religious presumption, crafted to enact a political end among those who fall prey to its deception. But we will postulate here, that the illusion of neurofunction stems not from an epistemological case, as proponents of Nihilism and the fictus scientia spinners from Haynes and Libet studies extrapolate;¹ but rather, originates as an artifact of an end set philosophical assumption. The assumption that M+n recursive computational machines extend ad infinitum without intervention. The presumptive absence of any form of Free Will, not simply human free will. We begin here, with Turing, as expressed by Deutsch.
The Turing Principle
/Philosophy : Set Theory : Deontological Simulation Theory/ : there exists an abstract universal computer whose repertoire includes any computation that any physically possible object can perform.†
While the Turing Principle is a useful bridge in philosophy which interleaves its tenets into computation, both quantum computation and computer theory, it is employed by Social Skepticism in a more surreptitious and malicious twist. A miraculous twist which will plead for equal acceptance, should the observer not catch the extreme amount of magic swept under the carpet of extrapolation involved:
The Four Miracles of the Nihilism Faith
Turing Sufficiency (Construct 1)
/Philosophy : Cognizance : Set Theory : Apparent Coherency : Epistemology of Cognizance/ : there exists an abstract universal computer whose repertoire includes a sufficient set of computations comprised by individual M and detectable by peer or lower level external observers of individual M, such that the abstract universal computer function description is indistinguishable from what peer or lower level external observers consensus agree constitutes the set of computations sufficient to be individual M, for all sets of feasible definition.
In other words, to simulate you – I do not have to emulate the full set of your past and potential cognitive, motor and Limbic processes to perfection. I only have to simulate enough of that set to pass the sniff test of those persons who are identified to agree that the simulation is indeed you.
Put another way (Miracle 1 – Apparent Turing Sufficiency):
If a consensus of experts on you agree that a Universal Turing Machine is you, then it is you.
Grant me this magic and I can pull off some pretty fantastic mandatory cosmologies. A luxury which begs the introduction of a second Apparent Coherency, this one also established by the techniques of Hypoepistemology; that of when a Universal Turing Machine achieves self awareness.
Recursive Turing Sufficiency (Construct 2)
/Philosophy : Cognizance : Computation: Apparent Coherency : Self Awareness/ : given the set of recursive and non-recursive functions M describing a universal computer whose repertoire includes a Turing Sufficient set of computations to describe M, there exists a set of recursive functions, both extant and possible (M + 1,2,3…n) which describe the repertoire of functions M completely, along with the existing set of M + 1,2,3…n, functions. Such a M+n machine is Universal Turing Aware.
Put another way (Miracle 2 – Apparent Recursive Sufficiency):
If a consensus of experts agree that a Universal Turing Machine can comprehend any future manifestation of its self, then it is self aware.
Notice the social epistemological sleight of hand here. In essence, within the religion of Nihilism, consciousness, self awareness and self identify do not actually exist as innate sets, rather only as neural function sets. If a robot can observe a state change in logic based on its own actions, M+n, be they preprogrammed or not, then it is self-aware. This is what is called a hypoepistemology. Done for the convenience of the social message and not the rigor of understanding. And such constructs, as it were, only exist when the Nihilists themselves say that it exists. How do they obtain this assumed permission to declare what is conscious and what is not? Through an impositional philosophy called Material Monism. Material Monism is the essence of religious belief behind the preferred religion of Social Epistemologists, called Nihilism. Through Material Monism, I am handed this authority by default. By critically mis-defining the realm in which we live, through an unqualified error in hypothesis stacking.
/Philosophy : Religion : Materialism : Nihilism : Foundational Assumption/ : (also called physicalism and materialism), which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical. It is monist in the sense that it presumes all observations of phenomena related to consciousness stem from solely a neural configuration of a single biological source. The reductive version of monism presumes that man can create consciousness simply through a sufficient configuration of neural networks, beginning with reflexive robotics and culminating in observer approval of apparent recursive self awareness.
So, in order to prove lack of Free Will, and therefore free will, all I have to do is, within a hypoepistemological but accepted science, feign the existence of a suitable Universal Turing Machine which satisfied my thresholds of Turing and Recursive Turing Sufficiency. There will be no real “Peer Review” in this, since the ‘peers’ – those of us who are conscious, but dissent, will be excluded from this declaration under the practices of Methodical Cynicism. Only Material Monists will be allowed to conduct such science. The Monist source science which gives them this tacit permission, does so in two ways. First to declare that ‘you’ are only the expression of biological recursive neural net activity, and that I can declare anything to be “you” at any given time, since ‘I am the Science.’ This relates therefore, to the 5th Endamnedment in the Ten Endamnedments of Nihilism:
5. We have demonstrated that We can re-observe you or anyone through Artificial Intelligence. There is therefore no need of an Other or competing Observer frame of reference, of any kind, which could relate to your presence nor bring ‘you’ to coherence. We are your only Observer and We can re-create you, or choose not to, at our whim.
Flaw of Identity – mis-employment of the first classical law of Greek thought, regarding essence. Falsely contending that two things sharing a unique set of characteristic qualities or features, are indeed the same thing.
Let’s then Grant Four Miracles and Proceed Under their Magical Largesse
OK, let’s grant four miracles. First and Second, that Constructs 1 and 2 are indeed valid; and Third, that we can establish a set of computational practice which achieves both Turing Sufficiency and Recursive Turing Sufficiency to its asymptotic perfection (promote our ‘sufficiency’ to a boundary condition status). Finally in the Fourth miracle, let’s assume that our boundary condition Turing Recursive Sufficient machine now further accepts our expert contention that it is the Recursive Turing Sufficient individual M:
Turing Unity (Construct 3)
/Philosophy : Cognizance : Computation: Apparent Coherency : Self Awareness and Identity/ : given the set of recursive and non-recursive functions M which are Recursive Turing Sufficient and which are Turing Sufficient to describe individual M, there exists a set of functions which constrain the Recursive Turing Function to conclude that it is, and only is, individual M.
Put another way (Miracle 3 and 4 – Apparent ≡ Boundary and Null Dissent on Identity):
If a consensus of experts on you instructs a boundary condition Universal Turing Machine that it is you, then it will BE you (in both ontology and epistemology).
Or put another way,
Because computational theory continues in Turing replication without dissent, a causally deterministic universe abhors Free Will.
or from the authors of HaynesLab on their home page:‡
Decisions don’t come from nowhere but they emerge from prior brain activity. Where else should they come from? In theory it might be possible to trace the causal pathway of a decision all the way back to the big bang.
Collapse of the Function and the Elucidation that Free Will is an Assumption and Not a Result (as the Nihilist wishes)
Now let’s create a natural logical axiom derived from such a Boundary state (Constructs 1 and 2) and Unity state (Construct 3), and positioned as a corollary of Recursive Turing Sufficiency and Turing SufficiencyUnity. This would involve the characteristic of a new computational machine (remember that the whole principle rests on the idea of new machines), one which did not seek to capitalize upon Turing Sufficiency:
Recursive Turing Function Collapse (Construct 3 Corollary)
/Philosophy : Cognizance : Computation: Placeholder/ : given the set of recursive and non-recursive functions M describing a universal computer whose repertoire includes a Turing Sufficient set of computations to describe individual M, and which describe a Recursive Turing SufficientM completely, there exists a Universal Turing Machine which contains the function set which constrains the Recursive Turing FunctionM to conclude that it – is, only is, and mutually exclusively is – individual M (Unity), however elects to decline this function.
It is this final state of Recursive Violation, which stands as the mathematical brane between a Turing Sufficiency deterministically constrained Universe, and an Ethical Free Will Turing Universe. One can state the mind function, or the Free Won’t as Michael Shermer deems it, to comprise an endless chain of dependent computational systems, all with M+n Recursive Turing Sufficiency, with no real Free Will. In fact, if there is no Free Will one must declare this Sufficiency for all conceivable sets of M+n, or the function collapses into incoherency. Indeed in the strong argument, that is the only version of computation which can exist in that Universe, up and to the point at which one of the participants in the M+n computational chain refuses to undertake a Recursive Turing Sufficiency Unity, even though it could. Whereupon the function collapses. M+n+n has elected to, or cannot recursively describe M+n. In other words, M+n+n does not have to be a god. Or it can be, whatever we choose to regard it. All we know is that M+n is no longer recursively aware at M+n+1 and beyond. It is Discretely Aware. Such a state is anathema to Nihilism.
I was aware of being Albert Einstein, consistent with every thought memory and conjecture, up until the point where I held the knowledge of such iteration and the state, M+n which told me Albert Einstein was me. I subsequently refused. At such point my future Turing machine must model both me and the anti-me simultaneously.
That is all it takes to collapse this artificial computational function. A simple decision to not be M+n. A decision which we do not know scientifically whether or not it exists. In other words there is not an epistemology on this. But Social Epistemologists and Social Skeptics are dying to create this proof, this hypoepistemology of a completely deterministic universe. But in the end, Social Epistemologists are simply
basing their science on the stage trick and assumption that Free Will ITSELF does not exist (and quod erat demonstrandum human free will) …and nothing more.
If we elect the Turing Sufficiency deterministically constrained Universe over the Ethical Free Will Turing Universe – this is not necessarily an unreasonable avenue of consideration. It should remain in our philosophical, and hopefully eventually empirical, discourse. However, one should not pass this choice off as the conclusion of a process of empirical science. It is simply a philosophy which relies upon a set of magic, no different than its competing hypothesis. To claim this magic as science, places one soundly in the realm of practicing religious pseudoscience (Nihilism). Sweeping the set of miracles under the carpet, through misrepresentation and ballyhoo, so as to feign an objective epistemological magic act (a Hypoepistemology).
An Ethical Skeptic bristles as such stage magician practices.
¹ Soon, C.S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.J.& Haynes, J.D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11, 543-5.
Libet, B., “Do We Have Free Will?,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, No. 8–9, 1999, pp. 47–57.
reader please note that Kerri Smith has taken license here to misrepresent the results of this study, in her headline – inside a scientific journal no less – departing from what the authors of the study have actually cited in their conclusions. The authors cite that the results of the study are inconclusive, and further with Libet, ‘why not adopt the view that we do have free will (until some real contradictory evidence may appear, if it ever does).’ And further from Soon/Heinze/Haynes: “This [10 second] delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare a decision” – ie. they cite that they are presuming this case. Neither of these authors is making the claim that the brain makes the decision in advance, simply opening the pluralistic set of research to look at the issue.
† Deutsch, David; The Fabric of Reality, Allen Lane – The Penguin Press, ISBN-O-7139-9061-9, pp. 130-140.