Free Will #11 – Hints about random numbers

          This entry is just to provide some hints to the number series I presented in entry #10 on Free Will <*here*>.

          If you don’t want to see any hints, then don’t scroll down. 

Previously I presented this:

BOX A

1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0
1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1
0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0
1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1
1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0
1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1

1’s = 77/149 (51.7%)

BOX B

1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1
0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0
0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1
0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1
1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1
0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	0

1’s = 74/149 (49.7%)

          I said I’d be interested if anyone can figure out which of the two series is the “encoded” one; and if so, how you figured it out.  Of course, it would be really impressive if someone could figure out the encoded message, but I think they would need a longer series to figure that out, even if I told you which one had the message. 

First Hint

The message is encoded as individual alphabetical letters.

Each letter is five bits.

Scroll down for more hints…

Second Hint

There is a four bit flag to indicate whether the subsequent data is useful or gibberish.

Third Hint

So, to be clear, the bits are arranged in groups of nine, where the first four bits combine to produce a flag and the last five bits are the data.  If the flag is up, then the next five bits are valid data indicating the next letter in the sentence.  If the flag is down, the next five bits can be ignored and you move to the next flag.

Fourth Hint

The “real data” flag is “0101”.

Fifth Hint

Letter coding is as follows:

Sixth Hint

OK.  The message says “I am alive” and it is in Box A.

Note that with this method, you would have to know that you have the start of the message because everything is counted from that first bit.  So, I also imagined that there would be two “start/stop” five bit “letters”:  “10000” and “01111” that, when they appear, indicate that the subsequent four bits form one of the flags.  Thus, if you broke in the middle of intercepting this series, you could still figure out the starting point for the message by identifying a start and stop bit.

Hope that makes sense.

I think a computer could figure this out because of the likely high rate of the “0101” flag series at multiples of nine.  But, because of the flag, you can always add as much gibberish as you want, so I imagined that you could just add all of the four bit “non-flags” to match the frequency of the real flags.  That would mean that there would be 15 gibberish fields (9 bits) for every one real field. 

This series requires a “mind” to make it appear truly random.  By that I mean that you really have to keep track of a lot of things for the series to work.  For example, you can’t just generate random series of 9 bits for the gibberish because a random series will sometimes start with the “0101” series of bits, which you have reserved as a flag.  Also, depending on the letters in the sentence, if you want to maintain the overall random nature of the whole set, you have to select gibberish series that counteract whatever trends their might be in the data series.  For example, if you have a sentence with a lot of “X”s in it, which is encoded as “00001”, then your whole set will tend to be highly skewed to “0” bits unless your gibberish tends to have more “1” bits in it.  Obviously in any random series it doesn’t have to work out to exactly 50:50, but you have to keep running count of the characteristics of the series and add gibberish that tends to move those characteristics back to the characteristics of the totally random series.  This could be done by a computer program that tracks the characteristics of the series so far and then adjusts the random selection of bits by weighting the selection towards the desired characteristics.  Ultimately, you’d need to track not just the total ratio of “0” and “1”s, but also the rate of bit pairs, triplets, quadruplets, etc.  This concept is very inefficient in terms of the data delivered compared to the total bits delivered, but I’m not sure that efficiency is required for my original proposition.  The point is you could encode information in what otherwise seems to be random bits.  If there really is a fundamental quantum randomness to everything, how could it be proven that there is not information encoded in that randomness?

My original point was to address the question of whether free will could act, yet not violate basic physical laws like conservation of energy.  I guess others have postulated that free will just re-distributes energy without creating or destroying any, and essentially that is what I am proposing here.  The energy is redistributed so that it encodes real information.

In my example, free will would be very inefficient because it would spend most of “it’s” time re-distributing energy just to create gibberish that would be ignored.  But this is not a problem in my concept of free will.  I don’t believe free will is involved in most “decisions” that we make.  I think most of the time we live our lives in some kind of autopilot and we really don’t often “break out” of the cause and effect cycle.  I think that, to a large extend, our biological brain is a deterministic system with a bit of randomness thrown in.  On rare occasions our free will breaks through and actually influences a decision.  In fact, this might only happen a few times a day…or maybe it is even much rarer than that…maybe our free will only really steps in a few times in our life.  If we look back on our life, there are decision-points that really shape who we are, and in between there is a lot of just “living life” in which we are just responding to what is in front of us.

An interesting outcome of my suggested method of free will action is that whenever you do intervene with free will (i.e. when you do enter the “up” flag and then real data) there is a the need to “balance it out” with gibberish.  I think this matches the human experience pretty well.  When I do something really good for someone that is “out of my comfort zone”, I feel this sense that “ok – now I can go back to being my average self”.  And if I do something like three good deeds in a row, there is this sense that “ok – now I’m allowed to do something that is not so great.”  But maybe that’s going too far with my extrapolation here.  I have a feeling that I will have to revisit this thought many times and tighten it up ... or maybe abandon it entirely.

Experimenting - #19 – Test Tube #2 – Entry #1

          I ended the previous entry on this topic <*here*> by saying that I think God does want to communicate with us, but He won’t be rude.  He’s not going to yell.  This goes back to the “if God is there, all he has to do is make himself obvious” discussion <*here*>.  Why doesn’t God yell?  It seems like it would be so easy if He did!

          Well, why do we yell?  We yell because we want to make sure the other person listens.  We use it for emphasis.  THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT.  Well, really, I just used that last phrase as an example.  For those of us who grew up with the concept that capital letters indicate yelling, just seeing something written in all caps raises our blood pressure a point or two.  Yelling is often associated with anger.  Or it is associated with the feeling that you are being ignored.  We can be in a crowded place – a noisy restaurant for example – where the din is deafening, but it one person starts yelling at another person, our attention will immediately be drawn to that person.  If there is a lot of yelling, that’s usually not a good sign.  If God yelled, we’d listen!

          But, sometimes I intentionally don’t yell when I am trying to make a point.  That happens when I have the upper hand.  I don’t yell because in my mind I say something like: “well, if you don’t want to hear what I have to say, that’s your problem.”  This type of thinking, by the way, is why I’m not a great educator or parent!  Anyway, sometimes I just think of yelling as being “beneath me.”  Why should I have to yell?  You’re the one who needs to know what I already know.  That’s my pigheaded pride speaking.  I don’t think God necessarily would see it exactly the same way, but I can definitely see that yelling is beneath Him.  If there really is a God, he surely doesn’t need us; but we surely need him.  So why should he stoop to our level to yell when we are the ones who need to stop talking and listen?

          There’s another thing though.  Have you ever tried to catch a wild animal and turn it into a pet?  Growing up I always imagined I could catch a bird or a squirrel and turn it into a pet that would hang around with me.  I had a few occasions where I saw a bird that was injured and so I would try to come up to it and pick it up.  When you approach a bird like that, you don’t come up running and yelling.  You have no chance if you do that.  You approach the bird slowly and speak in low tones. You can’t make a wild animal a pet by scare tactics.  People good at this sort of thing are called “whisperers” for a reason.  Yelling is out of the question.  I think God is in a similar situation - at least the God described by Christians (the “such a” God)…He apparently wants some kind of relationship with human beings that isn’t established through intimidation.  So yes, God could yell and make you cower, but what’s the point of that?

          As a skeptic I could say sarcastically “well – isn’t that highly convenient?  You come up with a God who has reasons not to be obvious.  Isn’t the more obvious explanation to the lack of evidence for God that there simply is no God?”  This bothers me because it’s a good point.  It certainly would make everything a lot easier if we were searching for an “obvious God” rather than a “subtle God.”  We can easily rule out an obvious God – at least an obvious God who yells!  But, the point is, if we are serious about searching, we have to give the subtle God a chance.  Opening Test Tube #2 is about giving the subtle God that chance – that chance to whisper.

          Test Tube #2 is communication with God.  Most religions would call it “prayer” and I’ll use that term here, but prayer usually has a lot of elements and broad meanings to it.  What I am talking about here when I say “prayer” has three important elements:  1) go to a quiet place, 2) talk to God, and 3) listen to God.

          Actually, I would recommend Test Tube #2 to anyone, regardless of whether they believe in a god or not, regardless of whether they are seeking, and regardless of whether there actually is a god or not.  True, you could find yourself talking to a wall (if “talking to God” is the same as “talking to nothing”), but the very act of going to a quiet place for a few minutes is, in my opinion, extremely valuable for human beings.  It sounds so simple, but in practice, if you live where most people live (in or near cities) and have a life that most people have (hectic), it’s not so easy!  Let’s think about this very simple act of “going to a quiet place.”

          First of all, a quiet place is both physical and mental.  In my experience, you need both to coincide.  I’m not talking about a metaphysical experience here.  I’m just being very practical and concrete.  A quiet place is one that is free of distractions and, as much as possible, free of potential distractions.  It’s also a place where you can be totally comfortable.  I am not comfortable talking to God in the presence of others.  I am not comfortable talking to God in a situation where any human being could hear me or even see me.  I need a place that is hidden.  Safe in every way.  Places I have found in the past include a locked room or a tucked away room (basements are good for that), a walk in the woods, or, at one apartment I lived in, I found a place tucked away behind the furnace.  More recently, I find the best thing in the world is a solo cross-country drive.  But in a busy city with a busy life, I have to say that physically finding a quiet spot is just not easy.  There can be noise, of course, in a quiet spot – it just can’t be distracting.

          The mental part is even harder.  It takes a while to stop thinking about all the things you have to do.  Frequently I make sure I have some way of taking notes, so that when various issues come to mind, I can write them down.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to start praying and suddenly I remember a dozen tasks that I haven’t thought of in weeks.  Why does that happen?  Well, it’s because we never stop to be quiet for any reason, not just for prayer.  This is why I recommend a “quieting down time” for everyone.  But there’s a deeper purpose that I’m proposing here.

          The second element of prayer is to “talk to God.”  All I’m suggesting here is to talk to God in plain language and say what you think.  It could be:  “Well, here I am.  I don’t think you’re there, God, and I think this whole thing is stupid, but, well, let’s hear it.”  That would be a really good start, in my opinion.  You can say more, of course, but only if you want.  Tell Him what He needs to do to get you to believe.  If you are facing something difficult, ask Him to help you through it.  There’s nothing magical here – either God is there and has the ability to hear you, or He’s not there or is deaf.  You can talk out loud or just think these things silently.  There is no deep meditation needed.  It is simple.

          The third element of prayer is listening, and we will deal with that next time.  You could actually skip the talking and go straight to listening, but I find it is helpful if I express my own thoughts.  It’s helpful to me, anyway. 

          How much should you “pray” in this manner?  Well, at least once.  But if you want a serious attempt at this, I would make the same suggestion I made with respect to reading the Bible.  A serious attempt, to me, would be praying daily for three months.  That is actually very hard to do and I have no real basis for picking that period.  And it’s not like if you miss a day you have to “start over”.  This isn’t about gaining some kind of points with God – it’s just about making a serious attempt that I think most of us would agree is really a serious attempt.  If you’re trying to lose weight or stop smoking or change any other habit, you’ve got to go more than a few days for sure.  One month is good, but seems barely there.  A quarter of a year – a season – seems like a really good goal.  Try it.

Consciousness, Free Will and Roger Penrose

[Note:  since I first wrote this entry, I've worked on developing a new theory of consciousness and free will that starts here.]

          I just finished reading a book called “Shadows of the Mind” by Roger Penrose.  It was written in 1994, and I see he has some more recent books out now, so I might check those out.  This book had some pretty interesting sections to it and brought together a few of the thoughts I have expressed in some of my previous entries.  Therefore, I thought it would be worth discussing the ideas in this book a bit.

          First of all, I have to admit that this book was the most technically-challenging book I can ever remember reading (excluding, I suppose, various textbooks from my college courses, but I don’t remember those anymore!).  I wouldn’t say the math is extremely advanced, but I found it very very difficult to follow.  On the back of the book there is a quote from the Los Angeles Times: “Elegant…beautifully written and argued.”  I seriously doubt that the average reader would understand the middle 80% of the book.  I mean, I’m not a mathematician or physicist, but I do have a PhD in engineering so I figure I’m at least an average reader with respect to a mathematical and scientific background, and I found this to be extremely difficult to follow.

          Despite the difficulty, there are some very interesting ideas put forward.  But what I’m mostly interested in is how this book perfectly illustrates a point I often try to make about our preconceived notions.  The theme of the first half of the book has to do with whether computers (or “Turing Machines”) will ever be able to achieve human consciousness.  Ultimately, Penrose shows that humans can understand certain things about mathematics that can be “proven” to be non-computational.  Since computers can only operate on computations, then they can never achieve the same level of understanding.  I’m not sure that our non-computational understanding of mathematics is the same as consciousness (!), but the point he is trying to make is that computers will never be able to duplicate what humans can do in this particular instance.

          Penrose proposes four viewpoints regarding this issue that I would like to copy here because I think they are worth considering:

“A.  All thinking is computation; in particular, feelings of conscious awareness are evoked merely by the carrying out of appropriate computations.

B.  Awareness is a feature of the brain’s physical action; and whereas any physical action can be simulated computationally, computational simulation cannot by itself evoke awareness.

C.  Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but the physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.

D.  Awareness cannot be explained by physical, computational, or any other scientific terms.”

          Penrose fully supports Option C, and the rest of the book is about defending that option.  His point is that A and B cannot be true (based on the proofs he goes through, among other things) and therefore a “new science” is needed.  The subtitle of the book is “A search for the missing science of consciousness”.  He shows that there is nothing in science that can possibly achieve some of the key aspects of consciousness, therefore we will need some new approach.  Ultimately, he suggests that this new science might be found somewhere in the mysterious connection between the quantum world and the Newtonian world and suggests this might occur in the cytoskeletons of neurons.  But this is only a vague perception of where this new science of consciousness might begin to be found.  It’s not a real suggestion of a solution – it’s just a possible direction to start looking.

          Although I fully support Option D, I do appreciate Penrose’s approach to trying to figure out a scientific answer to this issue.  What Penrose does show is that there is a fundamental difficulty in answering the problem of consciousness using current scientific understanding, but he fully expects that there will, ultimately, be a scientific explanation.

          I argued for Option D <*here*> - that was before I read Penrose’s book.  I was focusing on free will, but the issues related to consciousness are the same in this case [1].  I argued that, since science had no explanation for free will, and no clear hope of ever being able to explain free will, the logical conclusion was that there was a non-material (i.e. supernatural) explanation for free will.  What Penrose clearly illustrates is what I have pointed out elsewhere:  no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to cause a committed materialist to allow a supernatural element into his/her thinking.  Penrose admits that Option D is a possible option in this case.  He shows that Options A and B cannot be true.  But when it comes to Option D, all he can say is “give me a chance to show you that Option C is a reasonable option.”  This is because he can’t rule out Option D – all he can do is just eliminate it on the basis of his a priori biases against any supernatural explanation for anything.  This is what I have referred to as “locking and bolting the door” with respect to belief in anything supernatural. 

          I am not at all proposing that it is wrong to diligently seek for a scientific explanation for consciousness and free will.  In fact, I’d like to explore that area in my own research (if I had the time…which doesn’t seem likely these days).  I like Penrose’s approach and his search for ideas and I, personally, think he has some pretty interesting proposals.  All I want is for the materialist to be honest.  The materialist rejects God a priori, not because of any logical argument.  And, not only that, but the materialist locks and bolts the door against any possible intrusion of anything “supernatural.”  As a result, the one thing that the materialist cannot say is “if God wanted me to believe in Him, all He would have to do is appear before me.”   As I have argued before, that is simply not true.  If you really want an honest experience with God, you will first have to unlock your committed materialism and allow for the supernatural (i.e. miracles) to at least some degree.

          There are a small minority of committed materialists – those who are called the “new atheists” – who shake their fists at God and say “if I don’t believe, it’s Your fault.”  Some of these individuals have become famous and their views make the popular media.  I don’t believe they represent the vast majority of scientists and academics.  But these extremists do make it seem as if they are giving God a chance when, in reality, they have locked Him out.  If, instead, they were honest and said “there is no God and there is no amount of evidence of any sort that will change that fact”, then I could accept their position as being logically consistent.  I must admit that I have come to believe the opposite:  “there is a God (Jesus) and no amount of evidence of any sort will change that fact.”  I have come to that conclusion based on my own experiences, some of which have convinced me of the reality of Jesus.  But I didn’t start out that way – I didn’t start out with the conviction that Jesus was real.  However, as far back as I can remember, I always did allow for the possibility of the supernatural.  I always left the door open. 

          As far as I can tell, the consciousness that Roger Penrose imagines seems fundamentally random and void of a real will.  He proposes a new science will be necessary to even create a theory of consciousness.  Yet that still leaves us far short of achieving anything resembling a will - especially a free will, responsible for its own actions.  What will that require???

[1] Actually, since writing that sentence, I've changed my mind about this statement.  I now believe that free is such a unique and different problem when compared to the problem of consciousness that the two should not be lumped together.  See here to get a sense of that line of thinking.

Experimenting - #18 – Test Tube #1 – Example #3

          We are reviewing a few examples of people “hearing” from God through the Bible.  The first example happened in the late 30s AD and the second onehappened in the late 300s AD.  Both of those experiences resulted in the conversion to Christianity of the person involved.  Now we are going to jump to 1978 and describe an experience that happened to me.  In this case, the words I “heard” didn’t result in conversion, but it did set the path of my life from a career perspective.  Again, the point here is not that the experiences themselves are necessarily compelling, but they serve as examples of the way in which God can speak to human beings using the Bible.  If you’re totally skeptical of such things, then you will remain skeptical even after reading these examples.  I can’t blame you for that.  But my goal is to encourage those of you who are skeptical to put yourself in a position of possibly experiencing these kinds of things yourself. If you’ve already decided that God doesn’t interact with human beings, and no amount of evidence of any sort will change your mind, then you’re really wasting your time reading this blog.

Example #3 – My Path to Biomedical Engineering

As I was growing up I always wanted to be…well - two things.  When I was younger, like grade school (third grade especially), I really wanted to be a doctor.  I was fascinated by anatomy and physiology.  I thought the way the human body worked was incredibly fascinating.  So I wanted to be a doctor.  But over time I also got interested in machines and electricity.  I was especially interested in Thomas Edison.  I read books about Thomas Edison and about how he had this big laboratory where he just sat around and invented things.   I thought that was the greatest thing ever.  I loved inventing things.  So I began to think to myself:  I’ll become an inventor instead of a doctor.  Besides, it seemed like you had to go to school a long time to become a doctor, so maybe being an inventor was better.  It never entered my mind that you don’t just go to school and major in “inventing”.  So when it came time to look into going to college, I was very disappointed to find that there was no major in inventing.  I began to try to figure out what inventors major in.  It seemed like mechanical engineering was close to what I was imagining when I thought of being an inventor.   I was also interested in electronics, but it seemed like mechanical engineering was the area I would want to go into.  So that was my plan.  I was going to go to college and major in mechanical engineering, graduate, and be an inventor. 

          During the summer between my junior and senior years in high school, for some reason, I picked up the “Science Year Book” to read.  The Science Year Book was a yearly supplement to the “World Book Encyclopedia” series.  There was one Science Year Book put out each year.  I started reading the articles in it.  I don’t know why, but I did.  There was an article in this particular one on prosthetic arms.  In particular, it was about myoelectrically-controlled prosthetic arms.  It totally fascinated me.  I thought it was the coolest thing ever.  The article talked about how these prosthetic arms were being developed in a new field of study called “biomedical engineering”.  I thought it sounded like a fascinating area, but I didn’t think of it as applying directly to me. 

Early in my senior year of school, we had to do a report on different careers.  I felt like I already knew about mechanical engineering, so I decided to do the report on something I didn’t know anything about.  I picked the field of biomedical engineering since it seemed kind of interesting.  I got a book from the library about biomedical engineering.  It turned out to be almost a propaganda book about biomedical engineering, with the primary purpose of trying to encourage people to go into that field.  I read through it and it was really interesting.  Biomedical engineering combined medicine and engineering and was very interesting to me.  But still at that point, I wasn’t going to change my own plans.  It seemed like too big of a step.  To me it was like changing my major – a huge decision - even though I hadn’t even started applying to colleges yet!  I didn’t know that most people change their majors at least once after they get to college.  I don’t know why I felt like it was wrong to change my plans, but I did.  Looking back now, it just seems odd. 

          As the fall went on, however, the thought began to creep in that maybe I should seriously think about majoring in biomedical engineering.  I began to pray for some kind of guidance.  I guess I was afraid that I would make a wrong decision.  Also, I think I knew even at that time that it wasn’t easy to find schools with biomedical engineering degrees.  Oregon State University, which was where I was planning to go for mechanical engineering (I lived in Oregon), didn’t necessary have a program in that area.  I wanted to stay near home – at least stay in the state of Oregon - I had no interest in going off into the wide world.  All of these things were weighing on my mind at that time.

          In the midst of my praying and thinking and stewing about this issue, I was sitting in Sunday school sometime in the fall of my senior year.  I was daydreaming and I wasn’t listening to the Sunday school teacher at all.  I was thinking about the field of biomedical engineering and what I should do and whether I should make what seemed like a huge change in the direction of my life.  I thought about how it combined all of the interests that I had had – medicine, engineering, inventing – how it kind of combined all the things I thought I was good at – all my talents…and just as I was thinking this, the Sunday School teacher was reading a verse somewhere in I Corinthians and he said that the verse showed how we should use all of our talents for God.  So just as I was saying to myself “…all my talents”, I was suddenly conscious of the fact that the Sunday school teacher was also saying those exact same words, reading from the Bible.  The coincidence of my own thoughts and the Sunday school teacher’s words made it seem to me exactly as if God were speaking directly to me.  Suddenly it was obvious – I should go into biomedical engineering – I felt that was exactly what God wanted me to do.  To me, there was no doubt about it.  From that moment on, I started looking for schools with biomedical engineering programs and I was set on that path to this day.  I am still in that field almost 40years later!

          So, that’s an example from my own personal life.  As with the other examples, it could simply have been coincidence.  All I can say is:  “you had to be there”.  For me, having someone else speak out loud my own private thoughts word-for-word for a sentence or so was hard to ignore.  I can’t expect any of you to understand how mind-boggling that was without experiencing it yourself.  There was no question about it for me – it might as well have been a lightning bolt from sky.

          Could this happen to you?  I can appreciate significant skepticism, especially if you’re pretty convinced that there is no supernatural element to the universe.  Even I, when I think back on some of my experiences (including the one I’ve just related), I think they are somewhat corny and even childish.  Isn’t a scientist above attributing simple coincidences to a supernatural being?  It seems so silly.

          I’m just looking for a moment of complete honesty here…we just think we have it all pretty well figured out and we don’t need to fit God into the mix.  But as we discussed before <*here*>, if we prevent God from speaking to us using any natural means, and we reject all supernatural means, then what is left?

          I have come to believe the following:  God really does want to communicate with us – but it’s really hard to get our attention without being rude.  And God is not going to be rude.  I made a personal rule in my own life never to interrupt someone when they are talking – I just don’t do it.  But I can tell you that sometimes that is a really difficult rule to keep because people go on and on in their ignorance and never stop to take a breath!  I feel that we are like that with God.  We go on and on and we never stop to listen.  All I can ask is that you take a breath and listen – really listen.  I know that’s hard to do.  But you might hear something surprising!