Faut pas éxagérer..

Lorsque vous posez un caméléon sur du tissu écossais, il vous fait un bras d'honneur !

The illusion of free will

An interesting article from John Searle has been published in New Scientist Jan. 13th, 2007, on the subject of Free Will, one of my interests.

An even more interesting letter from Andrew Smith Shrewsbury was published 3 weeks later, stating that :
"It is logically inescapable that free will, as usually defined, is an illusion"

I agree.

Still this conclusion is especially hard to accept, dealing a bad blow on our feeling of human power and freedom... !!

The length of friendship

How long do you think you will remember a friendship ?

The other day, I had an old labmate (student friend) visit me in Switzerland after something like 12 years of not talking to each other.

Somehow, it seemed that I saw him the previous day...

Memory is such an incredible thing, it is a major opener to higher functions...

Science and free will

Something I am not going to dwell too much on, since it is a very large question which cannot be brushed aside lightly.

In science, one learns to predict events and the behaviour of systems. There is always a hidden assumption that the system is predictable, if we have all necessary data.

Now take a human as the "system". Even if we don't have all initial data, don't konw all the rules and sufficiently poweful computers, is science saying that a human is "predictable" ?

If yes, where is our free will ?

If no, what kind of science is that ?

The limit to human understanding

Another thought that intrigues me.
Is there a limit to our understanding ?

Suppose there is a system that behaves accroding to logical rules. This encompasses the brain, if you believe in science like me. Then, is this logical system understandable for the human brain, whatever its complexity ?

In other words, is man smart enough to understand anything and everything that is understandable ?

What does it mean, to "understand" ? To be able to enunciate all rules ? To predict the system ? These are not operational concepts since the rules could be given at any level of aggregation or abstraction (example : for the brain, the physical and chemical laws are not enough to understand the brain. Also, the "initial conditions", or the data to define the "state of the brain" will most probably never be fully available to allow prediction).

Consider also that the capacity of the brain has been built over many millennia, from the small capacity of the australopithecus, and that we have no way of telling if the brain would not continue its evolution in the next millenia.

Considering also the large variation in the capacity of understanding among the present human species, I think that it must be concluded certainly that certain systems are not understandable to everyone.

But still, are there certain systems or phenomena that no human can understand ? We could even extend the question to say that man collectively cannot understand ?

----

Think about chess : the computer has beaten the world's best player. Certainly, our brain is limited.

The reason for differenciated sex-bearers

Well then. I always thought that I would want to write one day.

Here's my chance. Thing is, you got to have tell a story or say something somehow interesting.

OK, here is an idea : I should log all thoughts that I deem interesting to record for personal use.

Example : this is a question : why does mankind have sex ? The answer is not so obvious.
First element : sex is more efficient to exchange genes for big and slow reproducing animals.
But there is still the possibility of being hermaphrodite ! According to some letter written by a
reader of "The New Scientist", there is a 2-fold cost of being dioecious - ok, but what is the
advantage ??