Free will and determinism

I kind of understand the principles behind the information science approach.  Even a "soul" has to be made of something.

My impression is that your information sciences are trying (ultimately unsuccessfully) to straddle both completely contradictory camps. To "have their cake and eat it too".

The fact remains that "information" in itself is immaterial but still real (like mathematics). 

First, the information sciences are nearly as far ranging as are physical sciences.  In my very limited observation, while there are camps, there is nothing of the unity of thought your words imply.  I am after pragmatic stuff and do not care about spin.  If any of my ramblings reflects poorly on the actual field of endevour - I apologize.  

Modern information science is like all before it, evolving with practical bent.  It has revolutionized biology.  It is being addressed in language and semiotics.  Engineered solutions from the science output have taken over modern culture with smartphones and metaverses.  Money money money.  Then some real stuff is going on in institutions with curious scientist doing the hard work.  Of recent note would be the Vienna folks.

https://www.iqoqi-vienna.at/

We agree on Libet and and we may agree on information as real.  But not just as math.  Math is exploring informational spaces.   The action in information is from the will and mind.  Will changes real world probabilities.  The pragmatic fact is evidenced in dissipative structures.  Do we have free will?   see prior quote where a Nobel winner declares it from an entropic viewpoint.

In the "space" of bio-information in the world, much willful intent is blocked internally and externally.  But all behavior is an outcome of motivated enforcement by living things to reach targets from their minds..   It is predictable and measurable as phenomena.

I kind of understand the principles behind the information science approach.  Even a "soul" has to be made of something.

Does it?  I mean why does it have to be reducible?

Does it?  I mean why does it have to be reducible?

Soul, mind or character does seem to have structure.  A structure based on decision-making and empathy.  Some folks may roll soul and spirit together.  I prefer to see soul as personal self and spirit as inter-personal self.

Understanding structure and any corresponding patterns of outcomes from soul, doesn't mean it is down to "atoms".  Some of it may just land on Love at the bottom.

Does it? 

Yes, otherwise it couldn't exist.

First, the information sciences are nearly as far ranging as are physical sciences.  In my very limited observation, while there are camps, there is nothing of the unity of thought your words imply.  I am after pragmatic stuff and do not care about spin.  If any of my ramblings reflects poorly on the actual field of endevour - I apologize.  

Modern information science is like all before it, evolving with practical bent.  It has revolutionized biology.  It is being addressed in language and semiotics.  Engineered solutions from the science output have taken over modern culture with smartphones and metaverses.  Money money money.  Then some real stuff is going on in institutions with curious scientist doing the hard work.  Of recent note would be the Vienna folks.

https://www.iqoqi-vienna.at/

We agree on Libet and and we may agree on information as real.  But not just as math.  Math is exploring informational spaces.   The action in information is from the will and mind.  Will changes real world probabilities.  The pragmatic fact is evidenced in dissipative structures.  Do we have free will?   see prior quote where a Nobel winner declares it from an entropic viewpoint.

In the "space" of bio-information in the world, much willful intent is blocked internally and externally.  But all behavior is an outcome of motivated enforcement by living things to reach targets from their minds..   It is predictable and measurable as phenomena.

I don't think so. If this were the case, that could only be because the human entity exhibiting this behavior was at base a vastly complicated deterministic computing device using a wide variety of algorithms to calculate and produce that behavior. Sort of an advanced AI on steroids. So scientists could observe, determine the nature of these algorithms from the behavior and the input data, and subsequently predict future behavior. Central to this is also that there would be no such thing as free will.

But we know that human consciousness is an ineffable immaterial something that is non-calculatable and non-algorithmic. Accordingly, from this and many other factors we know that we are vastly more than animated calculating machines, and we also know that we do in fact have free will.

I kind of understand the principles behind the information science approach.  Even a "soul" has to be made of something.

I mean... all things are made up, ultimately, of an ultimate substance which can take on an infinite, boundless variety of manifestations and forms.

So, saying that a Soul has be made of something doesn't say anything new or meaningful.

The Soul is still invariably irreducible. To put it more clearly, that which lies at the core of what a Soul is, is irreducible ~ that is, the perceiver, the point-of-view.

In a sense... everything is irreducible past a point, lest you no longer have that thing, but just parts.

A table, for example ~ a table is a whole. When you reduce the table to its parts, you no longer have the table, but merely the parts, that on their own cannot make a table, or provide the purpose of a table.

In a sense... everything is irreducible past a point, lest you no longer have that thing, but just parts.

A table, for example ~ a table is a whole. When you reduce the table to its parts, you no longer have the table, but merely the parts, that on their own cannot make a table, or provide the purpose of a table.

It's not that I reject metaphysical and "essence" arguments as meaningless, they are important.  They are not powerful justification for Psi as an observational phenomena.  Data patterns are.  These observations need a science model of activation and outcome to be taken seriously.  Free will and Psi are serious aspects of our lives and characters.  And while having their connection to spirit, they still should be able to be understood in a secular and civil framework.

Your table example is perfect for me to address.  The pile of table parts represents the physical environment contents and is specific in time and space.  Let's look a 3 other "dimensions" in informational space.  There is the bill of materials information.  It is the mutual information abstracted about the parts.  The virtual bill of materials (not the paper or hard drive its on)  unifies the object as a whole and in combination with building instructions can make a table.  These two virtual objects address the inner dimensions of the information object.  An abstract floating object is not real, except when a table designer at Ikea or camper in the woods needs a functional table.

The third dimension in a data model of tables - is the information nexus called affordance. It is the one that links the materialist methods of the table parts, with the information of past history (bill of materials) and future possibilities (instructions).  Affordance connects the instructions with motives for use.
https://www.interaction-design.org/liter...ffordances

 An affordance is what a user can do with an object based on the user’s capabilities.

As such, an affordance is not a “property” of an object (like a physical object or a User Interface). Instead, an affordance is defined in the relation between the user and the object: A door affords opening if you can reach the handle. For a toddler, the door does not afford opening if she cannot reach the handle.

An affordance is, in essence, an action possibility in the relation between user and an object.

I ask the forum back - is rational reduction bad?  Do the furniture craftsmen of the 18th century lose the spirit of the tables they built because they knew its parts to the bottom?  Or did they love the furniture all the more in ways that are lost in the modern day.

Knowing how informational processes shape our character is never more important, as information activity is disrupting cultural patterns.  It is critical that we don't lose the love in building families of character, as a primary skill.  For all those big on design - affordance is at its core.

Yes, otherwise it couldn't exist.

I don't know that this logically follows Brian.  You are asserting physical rules/attributes here.  That may not apply.

It's not that I reject metaphysical and "essence" arguments as meaningless, they are important.  They are not powerful justification for Psi as an observational phenomena.  Data patterns are.  These observations need a science model of activation and outcome to be taken seriously.  Free will and Psi are serious aspects of our lives and characters.  And while having their connection to spirit, they still should be able to be understood in a secular and civil framework.

Your table example is perfect for me to address.  The pile of table parts represents the physical environment contents and is specific in time and space.  Let's look a 3 other "dimensions" in informational space.  There is the bill of materials information.  It is the mutual information abstracted about the parts.  The virtual bill of materials (not the paper or hard drive its on)  unifies the object as a whole and in combination with building instructions can make a table.  These two virtual objects address the inner dimensions of the information object.  An abstract floating object is not real, except when a table designer at Ikea or camper in the woods needs a functional table.

The third dimension in a data model of tables - is the information nexus called affordance. It is the one that links the materialist methods of the table parts, with the information of past history (bill of materials) and future possibilities (instructions).  Affordance connects the instructions with motives for use.
https://www.interaction-design.org/liter...ffordances

I ask the forum back - is rational reduction bad?  Do the furniture craftsmen of the 18th century lose the spirit of the tables they built because they knew its parts to the bottom?  Or did they love the furniture all the more in ways that are lost in the modern day.

Knowing how informational processes shape our character is never more important, as information activity is disrupting cultural patterns.  It is critical that we don't lose the love in building families of character, as a primary skill.  For all those big on design - affordance is at its core.

Psi and free will needing and not having a "science model" to be taken seriously is naturalistic, reductionist materialist science's problem, not psi's or free will's. Psi and free will, besides having strong "metaphysical and "essence" arguments" for them, have voluminous empirical evidence for their existence, but escape understanding by orthodox science. I think they are inherently, existentially incapable of being understood through "secular and civil frameworks". This is because science (probably necessarily) wears blinders to phenomena that are real but originate in the spiritual realms beyond matter and energy. 

I think the basic problem is the arrogance of big Science in assuming that it has hegemony over absolutely all of reality.