Neuroscience and free will

What is change but something potential becoming actual?

Perhaps, but I don't know how useful such a vague definition would be.

I linked to it before [in reply to you]? It was a reply to Kamarling....it was a few pages back...I think around page 52?

I'll search for it.

So if I rewire your brain and make you a super villain, who is responsible? And if the answer is me, what if some swerve of indeterminism begets a change in your brain to accomplish the same change in your personality?

Both of us are responsible. I think that's how the law would look at it. I'm not sure it matters otherwise.

And while there is a legal standard, this obviously doesn't give a sense of personal responsibility, just a [motivation] to avoid getting caught for crimes for those who want to act out their desires.

And what more do you expect? Well, it might also make a person think about why society doesn't like those activities and then come to the conclusion that they really are bad.

Beyond that it's just atoms, really all the constituents of the Universe (energy, fields, particles, etc) that comes together via Order/Chaos to make a decision? And then, as Tallis points out in Of Time and Lamentation, isn't it really just one cause when all consciousness is cashed out - like the Big Bang - just as an arrow released has its cause in the bow?

Since I believe there are random events, it's not just a single original event that guides my life.

Is each "I" then the Universe? That seems like too much overlap to be logical, at least under Physicalism given all mentality is cashed out before getting to the real causes.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

So Physicalism is the major philosophy for much of the skeptical movement, but no one stopped to figure out how to preserve personal moral responsiibility?

We preserve it by declaring it to be so. There is nothing else you can do. Proclaiming that there is something behind the scenes that grants us "true responsibility" is of no use to the law. And, since I don't understand how it works, it's of no use to me.

Surely there's some way a person who can avoid any justice by the law could be argued into taking personal moral responsibility under Physicalism?

Huh? You mean can I have a conversation with a person and try to change their attitudes about morals and so forth? Sure, what stops me from having that conversation?

Some way that someone who isn't causally capable of actually making free decisions can feel proud of an achievement, or feel guilty for bad actions? I mean I have not even the slightest inkling how this could be so, but there must be some way right?

You have a conversation with them. I don't think I understand your issue here.

~~ Paul

I reread pages 47–53. Unfortunately, I did not find anything that seems to be an explanation of why I would choose chicken rather than fish.

I think it's quite possible that I am simply reading over something that you think answers my question, more or less. It would really be helpful if you could link to or quote that text.

I did read this:

"There's a need (or so I would argue) for Final Causes, and if Mind can select the Final Cause that's how it makes a free decision.
How I see it is:
Efficient Cause -> What is usually regarded as the Cause of an Event.
Final Cause -> What selects a Possibility from the set of Possible Effects."

That doesn't answer the question, it merely states that I can make a free decision.

Also:

"By Mind's ability to make use of Final Cause through Intentionality / Subjectivity / Rationality."

Again, just a restatement of my ability to make the choice.

And then:

"So for any cause-effect relationship we have the presence of things that are Actual ("Efficient Cause" or "External Cause") and something within the entity undergoing change that selects from available Possible Effects ("Final Cause" or "Internal Cause").

To go back to the free being that incorporates its relevant Past, I'd use Sartre's definition of Free Will -> "Freedom is what you do with what is done to you." So the past leading up to the decision is the Efficient/External Cause (meaning the causal precursors that led to the available possible decisions) and this decision is made by the Final/Inner Cause of the free being.

So the free being is not just making decisions disregarding what has come before, as what has come before is included in the Efficient Causes. And the free being is not just acting randomly -- which would mean the actualizing of a Potential State without something already Actual involved -- because the Past & Present states of the world (meaning all precursors to a decision) are the Actual in this case."

The bolded statement just names the decision-making part of the being.

The final paragraph seems reasonable but does not explain the way in which the Final/Inner Cause selects from the possibility space.

~~ Paul

Perhaps, but I don't know how useful such a vague definition would be.

Well we were looking for something true in all possible worlds where change exists.

Both of us are responsible. I think that's how the law would look at it. I'm not sure it matters otherwise.

Really, both of us are responsible? I don't think the law works exactly the way you say. I believe there are mitigating circumstances considered beyond just actions?

Isn't intent the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter in the US system?

And what more do you expect? Well, it might also make a person think about why society doesn't like those activities and then come to the conclusion that they really are bad.

I think it's obvious people can get away with all sorts of crimes, especially if they have connections and are in an area where law enforcement are corrupt.

So the question is why would they conclude they are really bad when they can say, "Oh, it's not me but the Universe's conditions that make [people] decide actions."

Since I believe there are random events, it's not just a single original event that guides my life.

So people are responsible for actions because there is randomness in particles? That can't be right...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Causes in the universe are interest-relative, and thus need Consciousness. Otherwise there's really just an unfolding from entire state of the Universe to the next state, so why would it make sense to identify a person with the boundary of their experience...especially if, as per Physicalism, that boundary is set by an illusory Consciousness?

Better to say each person is the Universe entire, since all the sum of physical forces is all there is under Physcialism, and that sum of forces is what makes "decisions" (of course under Physicalism there are no actual decisions, it's just Luck).

[But that means people are nothing in reality, since you can't have that kind of overlap for individuals.]

We preserve it by declaring it to be so. There is nothing else you can do. Proclaiming that there is something behind the scenes that grants us "true responsibility" is of no use to the law. And, since I don't understand how it works, it's of no use to me.

So the plan of the skeptical movement is to evangelize Physicalism, but then say people [should] just pretend its conclusions aren't true?

That can't be right, a movement dedicated to Rationality couldn't be so grossly negligent...am I just not seeing something b/c it still doesn't make sense how a person should feel pride or guilt if the atoms are what actually "decide".

Huh? You mean can I have a conversation with a person and try to change their attitudes about morals and so forth? Sure, what stops me from having that conversation?

I mean a reason for a person to feel they are responsible for their actions when the actual reality - under Physicalism - is that their supposed feeling of decisions are illusory. 

So when you have this conversation, and the person says, "Well don't blame me, blame the Universe!"....you would say....something. But I've not even the slightest idea what that "something" could be.

You have a conversation with them. I don't think I understand your issue here.

I just want a basic understanding of how you can convince someone to be morally responsible if their feeling of decisions is an illusion and the true reasons for their actions is external to them.

Really, both of us are responsible? I don't think the law works exactly the way you say. I believe there are mitigating circumstances considered beyond just actions?

The court could certainly determine that I had absolutely no control over myself after you zapped me. So then it would be just your fault.

Isn't intent the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter in the US system?

Probably so, yes.

I think it's obvious people can get away with all sorts of crimes, especially if they have connections and are in an area where law enforcement are corrupt.

So the question is why would they conclude they are really bad when they can say, "Oh, it's not me but the Universe's conditions that make [people] decide actions."

They would conclude they are bad if their thoughts led them to that belief. Be careful that you don't assume that determinism/randomness means that I'm not actually thinking about things that can lead me to change my own mind. On the other hand, sure, a truly nasty person might try to use metaphysics as a defense in court. It's probably already been done.

So people are responsible for actions because there is randomness in particles? That can't be right...

I am saying that people are responsible for their actions simply because they performed the actions, at least as far as the law is concerned. I agree that if somehow I can make free decisions, then I am responsible in a different way, assuming that it is me that is making those decisions, and not some lower-level agent making decisions by proxy. However, as I said, since I don't understand how this could work, it doesn't matter in a practical way.

So the plan of the skeptical movement is to evangelize Physicalism, but then say people [should] just pretend its conclusions aren't true?

Sorry, I'm not privy to the "plans of the skeptical movement." But it is true that some people are suggesting that our assumptions about responsibility need to be modified a bit. In particular, I believe that we have to stop kidding ourselves about punishment. The purpose of incarceration is to take people out of society so everyone else is safer. Crimes that are almost completely victimless need to be treated differently.

That can't be right, a movement dedicated to Rationality couldn't be so grossly negligent...am I just not seeing something b/c it still doesn't make sense how a person should feel pride or guilt if the atoms are what actually "decide".

You know, if someone could explain how these free decisions work and then provide evidence of that explanation, perhaps they could change minds. Meanwhile, I'd be careful of throwing around the term "evangelize."

I mean a reason for a person to feel they are responsible for their actions when the actual reality - under Physicalism - is that their supposed feeling of decisions are illusory. 

So when you have this conversation, and the person says, "Well don't blame me, blame the Universe!"....you would say....something. But I've not even the slightest idea what that "something" could be.

"Whatever, dude, but it would be nice if you would stop being a dick."

I just want a basic understanding of how you can convince someone to be morally responsible if their feeling of decisions is an illusion and the true reasons for their actions is external to them.

I could say: You know, Fred, you're right that your decisions are just determined and random. But I am sitting here telling you that you should still behave differently. So I am one of the determiners of your moral philosophy that you should include in your decisions on how to behave.

Of course, if Fred has no ability to develop a moral philosophy at all, then we are on a fool's errand regardless of our philosophical approach with him.

~~ Paul

The court could certainly determine that I had absolutely no control over myself after you zapped me. So then it would be just your fault.

But if a random particle movement ultimately changed my brain I also wouldn't responsible, correct?
It's just difficult to see why there is a cut off in causal networks in this system such that anyone is responsible for anything. If I take a deep breathe and this causes - via the Butterfly Effect - a hurricane in Hong Kong should I put on trial for attempted genocide?

Probably so, yes.

So the legal system of the US, at least, assumes free will?

They would conclude they are bad if their thoughts led them to that belief. Be careful that you don't assume that determinism/randomness means that I'm not actually thinking about things that can lead me to change my own mind. On the other hand, sure, a truly nasty person might try to use metaphysics as a defense in court. It's probably already been done.

I thought you said earlier in the thread that under Physicalism people cannot control what thoughts they have? But if you cannot control the thoughts you have, and they are determined or random, this change of your own mind could just be due to entanglement with particles far from your body correct? And even if they are in your body, what you ultimately change your mind toward is based on the base level micro-constituents (plus energy/force/etc) right?

I am saying that people are responsible for their actions simply because they performed the actions, at least as far as the law is concerned.

So if I make a man commit treason by kidnapping his children he is as guilty as the man who does it merely for profit? The law has no means of addressing such mitigating circumstances? What if I insert a device into someone's skull to make them commit treason?

I agree that if somehow I can make free decisions, then I am responsible in a different way, assuming that it is me that is making those decisions, and not some lower-level agent making decisions by proxy. However, as I said, since I don't understand how this could work, it doesn't matter in a practical way.

You said free will could just be a brute fact earlier in the thread, so it could just be one of those things that exists. I'm sure many people believe that so pushing a paradigm on them where that is impossible would suggest there should be a way to rescue the ideas of human achievement and moral responsibility within that paradigm.

And I think it would seem to matter in a practical way if one were the victim of a crime where the perpetrator's reason was they couldn't do otherwise.

Sorry, I'm not privy to the "plans of the skeptical movement." But it is true that some people are suggesting that our assumptions about responsibility need to be modified a bit. In particular, I believe that we have to stop kidding ourselves about punishment. The purpose of incarceration is to take people out of society so everyone else is safer. Crimes that are almost completely victimless need to be treated differently.

But if no one is responsible, then do we keep a criminal in prison forever? Since they can just keep holding to the fact there's no moral responsibility.

And this still wouldn't be an explanation for how someone who isn't the true decision maker of their actions is actually responsible. It only works when people get caught.

You know, if someone could explain how these free decisions work and then provide evidence of that explanation, perhaps they could change minds. Meanwhile, I'd be careful of throwing around the term "evangelize."

There are a variety of explanations, if you have an issue with some of the arguments in this thread please point to specific contentions. Or see Of Time and Lamentation by Tallis, or A Place for Consciousness by Gregg Rosenberg, or Aquinas for Beginners by Edward Feser, books on Process Philosophy following Whitehead...

I mean surely if moral responsibility is at stake one must be very-times-1000% sure in their denial of free will even as a brute fact aspect of human consciousness? Just as if someone said it was okay for pregnant women to drink a shot of whiskey a day it wouldn't suffice for said person to claim they hadn't seen any major research against it they found convincing?

And even if free will is just a fundamental axiomatic brute fact like the brute facts Physicalism rests on, a special just-so property belonging to conscious entities...if there is no way to rescue moral responsibility under Physicalism isn't the only moral action available to us providing support for those fields that give reasons to believe in that brute fact...fields such as Immaterialist Philosophy, QM interpretations requiring a Conscious Observer, Intelligent Design, and Parapsychology? 

I don't think 'evangelize' is a negative term?

And I get you may not have anything more to do with the skeptical movement than posting on here (and previous forums) but I think it's a valid philosophical question at the least -> When the skeptical movement inducts young people into its phyiscalist paradigm, and wants them to play missionary for said belief system, how do they explain why anyone should be feel morally responsible for their actions when they couldn't, barring randomness by definition not under their control, do otherwise?

Maybe a break down - like a script - into steps and then point out where moral responsibility takes hold in the sequence of choiceless events?

"Whatever, dude, but it would be nice if you would stop being a dick."

What if the person, say this Fred fellow below, is not being a dick to you. They are nice to you, but a violent drug dealer. If Fred asserts he has no moral obligation to stop, and have paid off the corrupt government (who also have caught on to the physicalist world view), what does one say to make him realize that while he has no actual control over his decisions he is in fact morally responsible?

I could say: You know, Fred, you're right that your decisions are just determined and random. But I am sitting here telling you that you should still behave differently. So I am one of the determiners of your moral philosophy that you should include in your decisions on how to behave.

Of course, if Fred has no ability to develop a moral philosophy at all, then we are on a fool's errand regardless of our philosophical approach with him.

How are you a determiner if you are not presenting a logical argument why Fred should be morally responsible? Even a short paragraph or two could stop him from drug running - I just don't have any inkling what the argument is if I have to go with the assumptions of the Physicalist paradigm...

Word of advice Paul. It may be helpful to set aside all the weirdness you may associate with ‘matter’. Discard any sublime, miraculous and bizarre phenomena that physics, and the examination of the natural world, might have revealed. Strip ‘the physical’ down to its kindergarten representation, and then underestimate its properties a little further. That may make it easier to converse with your audience.

Did you intend that this advice should come across as "dumb it down for them"?

But if a random particle movement ultimately changed my brain I also wouldn't responsible, correct?
It's just difficult to see why there is a cut off in causal networks in this system such that anyone is responsible for anything. If I take a deep breathe and this causes - via the Butterfly Effect - a hurricane in Hong Kong should I put on trial for attempted genocide?

If the random particle movement made you crazy, let's say, then you wouldn't be responsible. The court either finds you responsible or it doesn't. If the court wants to get philosophical about "true responsibility," then I despair we'd ever sort things out, regardless of what's really going on.

So the legal system of the US, at least, assumes free will?

It assumes free will as far as such things as not being coerced or forced. I do not know whether it assumes libertarian free will. If so, great, but that doesn't say anything about how the world actually works.

I thought you said earlier in the thread that under Physicalism people cannot control what thoughts they have? But if you cannot control the thoughts you have, and they are determined or random, this change of your own mind could just be due to entanglement with particles far from your body correct? And even if they are in your body, what you ultimately change your mind toward is based on the base level micro-constituents (plus energy/force/etc) right?

People can't control their thoughts in a libertarian sense, no. But their own thoughts and those of others can certainly have an effect on their future thoughts.

Now, let's assume a libertarian world. Surely you're not suggesting that no events outside of my own willed mental events can have an effect on me. So there is still the possibility that my thoughts are affected by things I don't know about.

So if I make a man commit treason by kidnapping his children he is as guilty as the man who does it merely for profit? The law has no means of addressing such mitigating circumstances? What if I insert a device into someone's skull to make them commit treason?

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "simply because they performed the actions." There can be extenuating circumstances. But absent any discernible extenuating circumstances, I am responsible for my actions.

You said free will could just be a brute fact earlier in the thread, so it could just be one of those things that exists. I'm sure many people believe that so pushing a paradigm on them where that is impossible would suggest there should be a way to rescue the ideas of human achievement and moral responsibility within that paradigm.

You'll have to talk to someone who pushes that paradigm. And every religious paradigm. And various philosophical paradigms.

But if no one is responsible, then do we keep a criminal in prison forever? Since they can just keep holding to the fact there's no moral responsibility.

We say, "Sorry, but this is the way it works. We consider you responsible if there are no extenuating circumstances." I'm not sure why we would keep them in prison forever.

And this still wouldn't be an explanation for how someone who isn't the true decision maker of their actions is actually responsible. It only works when people get caught.

What difference can any philosophy make if the person doesn't get caught? There are no brain police.

There are a variety of explanations, if you have an issue with some of the arguments in this thread please point to specific contentions. Or see Of Time and Lamentation by Tallis, or A Place for Consciousness by Gregg Rosenberg, or Aquinas for Beginners by Edward Feser, books on Process Philosophy following Whitehead...

Again, I ask you to point me to a specific few paragraphs that you think answer my question. Nothing I have every read in 20 years of having this conversation has ever registered with me as an explanation of why I chose chicken over fish but could have done the opposite. If you think I'm being disingenuous about this, I don't know what to say. I am not.

What if the person, say this Fred fellow below, is not being a dick to you. They are nice to you, but a violent drug dealer. If Fred asserts he has no moral obligation to stop, and have paid off the corrupt government (who also have caught on to the physicalist world view), what does one say to make him realize that while he has no actual control over his decisions he is in fact morally responsible?

What does one say anyway? Either you can convince him to stop or you can't. Since you cannot present him with evidence of his moral responsibility nor show him what will happen in some afterlife if he doesn't stop, what would you do?

How are you a determiner if you are not presenting a logical argument why Fred should be morally responsible? Even a short paragraph or two could stop him from drug running - I just don't have any inkling what the argument is if I have to go with the assumptions of the Physicalist paradigm...

Because I'm telling him he is being a dick. Do you really believe that people will change their behavior if you have a philosophical discussion with them about how free will works? Everyone has already told this guy that he is morally responsible (it's not as if I'm the person teaching everyone about morals). He doesn't care.

None of this matters. You cannot convince me to accept a nonexistent explanation for libertarian free will just because it would make my moral arguments with criminals easier. If that worked, I would long ago have been convinced by Christians to believe in the Christian God.

What I would like to see is a reference to a cogent summary of why I chose chicken instead of fish. 


~~ Paul

Word of advice Paul. It may be helpful to set aside all the weirdness you may associate with ‘matter’. Discard any sublime, miraculous and bizarre phenomena that physics, and the examination of the natural world, might have revealed. Strip ‘the physical’ down to its kindergarten representation, and then underestimate its properties a little further. That may make it easier to converse with your audience.

This seems more an argument for the ability to get genuine free will - not to mention Psi and possibly life after death - from non-conscious matter than an argument against any of those things?

Otherwise it comes across as a bizarre non sequitur, unless you feel there are some of these "sublime, miraculous, and bizarre phenomena" [that] can give us a way to achieve moral responsibility when all decisions come down to the constituents of bodies & brains.

If this is in reference to something prior, say how to get Subjectivity / Intentionality / Rationality  from matter I've said I am open to the idea of Panpsychism or Neutral Monism so not sure what the charge is here? But it seems to me, as per the materialist Alex Rosenberg and the atheist horseman Sam Harris, that if we assume matter lacks mental characteristics its nonsensical to think they can be brought in.

Perhaps someone has a sketch of how one achieves the seemingly nonsensical/impossible?

Did you intend that this advice should come across as "dumb it down for them"?

I can't speak for malf on that particular question.

However, it does seem like people are dumbing down physics for the sake of comparing it to a possible indeterministic world. We agree that the lowest levels of physics involve axiomatic existants and properties based on our observations. And I think we might agree that a specific free decision is axiomatic. At least, it seems to me that has to be the case, since no one can break it down into "steps" or "subdecisions" or "inputs and outputs" or "probabilities" or whatever. There isn't even any explanation for where to draw a line between a trivial decision and a complex, composite decision.

What I find somewhat disingenuous is that people place both of those axiom systems on the same level. We've got copious observations and mathematics and modeling and inter-theoretic descriptive laws and derived technology for the physics axiomatic system. We don't have much for the free will axiomatic system. This is not to say that we won't in the future, but any talk of promissory physics in this context is laughable.

~~ Paul

If the random particle movement made you crazy, let's say, then you wouldn't be responsible. The court either finds you responsible or it doesn't. If the court wants to get philosophical about "true responsibility," then I despair we'd ever sort things out, regardless of what's really going on.

But courts already have legal definitions of responsibility, and you just said earlier they should be amended b/c they should accept there's no free will?

As noted below:

It assumes free will as far as such things as not being coerced or forced. I do not know whether it assumes libertarian free will. If so, great, but that doesn't say anything about how the world actually works.

Again, you are saying we should amend our ideas of free will to the Physicalist paradigm that denies it. When should we tell children they are not in control of their actions?

People can't control their thoughts in a libertarian sense, no. But their own thoughts and those of others can certainly have an effect on their future thoughts.

But one of those thoughts is now, "I am not responsible for anything because I have no control over my decisions."

So what is the new thought that would convince someone otherwise?

Now, let's assume a libertarian world. Surely you're not suggesting that no events outside of my own willed mental events can have an effect on me. So there is still the possibility that my thoughts are affected by things I don't know about.

But in a "libertarian" world, by which I assume you mean a world with real free will, you do have at least some control over your decisions and thus some responsibility as a causal agent.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "simply because they performed the actions." There can be extenuating circumstances. But absent any discernible extenuating circumstances, I am responsible for my actions.

But isn't there always extenuating circumstances, because your decisions/thoughts/actions are just part of an existing chain of sequences of the base level of physics that is out of any conscious being's control if Physicalism is true?

We say, "Sorry, but this is the way it works. We consider you responsible if there are no extenuating circumstances." I'm not sure why we would keep them in prison forever.

If they are not responsible for their actions, why should we ever let them out if they feel no guilt about doing the same thing again? After all, they would argue that under Physicalism the decisions are made by no one because Consciousness is an Illusion and physics fixes all the facts.

What difference can any philosophy make if the person doesn't get caught? There are no brain police.

Most people in the world don't commit crimes, or [do] legal bad things to others, because they feel they have a choice and thus moral responsibility.

Again, I ask you to point me to a specific few paragraphs that you think answer my question. Nothing I have every read in 20 years of having this conversation has ever registered with me as an explanation of why I chose chicken over fish but could have done the opposite. If you think I'm being disingenuous about this, I don't know what to say. I am not.

The paragraphs are in the posts you already said you would look over. While we are waiting perhaps you can tell us how I can be responsible for actions if I am not capable of being a source of causation in any way.

What does one say anyway? Either you can convince him to stop or you can't. Since you cannot present him with evidence of his moral responsibility nor show him what will happen in some afterlife if he doesn't stop, what would you do?

But he is performing his evil actions precisely because he is a convert to the Physicalist belief system, where physics fixes all the facts including [those] underlying his thoughts and actions.

I am assuming there's some way to explain to him that despite him be[ing] correct about everything in the above sentence there's a reason he should be a moral person?

Because I'm telling him he is being a dick. Do you really believe that people will change their behavior if you have a philosophical discussion with them about how free will works? Everyone has already told this guy that he is morally responsible (it's not as if I'm the person teaching everyone about morals). He doesn't care.

Again, he is acting the way he is b/c he is convert to Physicalism.

None of this matters. You cannot convince me to accept a nonexistent explanation for libertarian free will just because it would make my moral arguments with criminals easier. If that worked, I would long ago have been convinced by Christians to believe in the Christian God.

I never said my intention was to convince you by asking you these questions? I agree, that would a fallacious Argument from Consequences.

At worst I just wonder why anyone in general would evangelize the Physicalist faith that denies free will even as a brute fact, and yet accepts so many other brute facts about Laws and Something From Nothing emergence of Subjecitivty / Rationality / Intentionality? Even you said earlier in the thread that it was fine if free will were a brute fact, just that it would be unsatisfying to you?

But I remain curious re: Phyiscalism & Moral Responsibility because you've used the term Libetarian Free Will, which makes me think there is some other kind of pseuedo free will that you believe makes people morally responsible? 

I just want to know what this kind of moral responsibility under Physicalism would look like, maybe a script of how in the causal sequence under no one's control - b/c physics fixes all the fact[s] and at the level of atoms no one makes decisions - there are points where someone is morally responsible.

If Physicalism has no way to rescue human achievement and moral responsibility, and everything about human life is worthless if it were true (thankfully that's logically impossible) then so be it.

What I would like to see is a reference to a cogent summary of why I chose chicken instead of fish.

If you have some specific criticism of some specific prior post, or some excerpt out of the books I've mentioned, I'll do my best to answer it. I can't respond to a problem that I do not see.

But perhaps reading some of the authors I've mentioned might help? You mentioned looking into Tallis' Of Time and Lamentation, and I'd confirm your observation that it sounds fascinating. It is a worthwhile read IMO.