7 kommenttia

1.  

   Aivan erinomaisia huomioita!

   
   Nyky-feminismi on todellakin yhteiskuntaa hajoittava voima /aate joka ansaitsee vastareaktion… Norja jo lopetti yliopistoistaan ko. “tieteenalan” ja perusteluna oli nimenomaan epätieteelisyys.

   
   Muutoinkin olisi kyseenalaistettava laajalti ja voimallisesti sosialismin eri muotojen ja suuntauksien hyödyllisyys yhteiskunnassamme.

   
   Kyseenalaistamisen tarpeella viittaan mm. vihervasemmiston keskuudessa esiin-tulleeseen ilmastohysteriaan ja sen lietsomiseen, koska ratkaisut “ongelmiin” ovat näemmä kerta toisensa jälkeen yhteiskuntaa ja kansantaloutta heikentäviä (esim. verojen korotukset) .

   Raksaäijä

    

   lokakuu 24, 2019
2.  

   Olen naisena samaa mieltä:“Intersektionaalinen feminismi lähtee siitä, että maail- ma jakautuu sorrettuihin ja sortajiin. Kun sitten on saatu vakuutettua, että ryhmä X on sorrettu,kaikki kritiikki ryhmää kohtaa muuttuu sortamiseksi.Normaali yhteis- kunnallinen keskustelu onkin yhtäkkiä setäselittämistä, misogyniaa, sovinismia, tonepolisointia, tilanvientiä ja milloin mitäkin.”

   
   Feminismi nykyisessä muodossa on jotain aivan hullua, esimerkiksi jos l-nainen ei halua seksikansankäymistä t-naisen kanssa, jolla on miehen sukupuolielin, niin se l-nainen sen jälken on foobikko, sortaaja ja syrjäytyjä, eli jos sellaista joku havaitsee sosiaalimediassa, niin se l-nainen saa aikamoista lokaa niskalle. Feministiltäkin, tai erityisesti feministieiltä.

   Vikki

   lokakuu 24, 2019
3.  

   Koko kirjoitus on täyttä sontaa

   Vallankumouksellinen proletaari

   lokakuu 24, 2019
   1.  

      Niin on feminismikin.

      Hannele Korpela

      lokakuu 24, 2019
4.  

   Rehellinen ja reilu ote nuoren miehen pohdinnassa. Näin se on. Kun feministit on saaneet tääntään kuuluviin yht. kunnassa, heille on iskenyt “lisää, lisää” pakko-mielle. Eli he ovat tietenkin ensin vaatineet, oikeutetusti, tasa-arvoisia mahdolli-suuksia. Mutta nyt ollaan jo väärällä puolella. Miehet kyykkyyn! tuntuu olevan useiden feministien päämäärä.

   Anne T

   lokakuu 25, 2019
5.  

   Lopputuloksen tasapäistäminenhän johtaa juurikin siihen, ettei mies-tyypillisestä riskinottamisesta olisikaan enää hyötyä edes osalle miehistä. Liekö tämä feministisen ajattelun sivutuote vai yksi tavoitteista? Todella kiintoisaa.

   Enemmän olen tosin huolessani pyrkimyksestä tasapäistää myös ne miehet,jotka riskejä ottaessaan ovat päätyneet rikoksen teille. Kouluampuja tai -puukottaja, jo-ka aikaisemmin leimattiin hulluksi, löytää nykyään mediassa niitä, jotka haluavat ymmärtää ja selittää pahuuden pois. Kari Enqvist kirjoitti aiheesta mainion kolum-nin, käykää ihmeessä lukemassa! Löytyy ensimmäisenä listassa hakusanoilla
   Kari Enqvist hullu

   Petri Muinonen

   lokakuu 25, 2019
6.  

   Agenda 21 ja sen marxismiin pohjaavat laaja-alaiset tavoitteet. Voimakkaimmin tämä pakkosyöttö isketään entisiin protestanttimaihin. Suomalaiselle ikuiselle orjakansalle tämä on helppoa. Niellään kaikki valheet aina pureksimatta.

    

   ***
   
   https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/heikki-ranta/mika-tiedetoimittajan-tiedekasityksessa-voikaan-olla-pielessa/

   "

   Mikä tiedetoimittajan tiedekäsityksessä voikaan olla pielessä?

    

   

   Heikki Ranta 11.6.2023 15:41

   Toimittaja, vaikuttaja ja tubettaja Ivan Puopolo on tunnettu erityisesti intersektio-naalisen feminismin ja woketuksen kiivaana vastustajana. Tästä esimerkki on hänen kritiikkinsä woketuksesta yliopistoilla sekä yhteiskunta- ja kulttuuritieteiden huonommuus suhteessa luonnontieteisiin. Tiedetoimittajaksi itseään tituleeraava Puopolo on jo useamman vuoden ajan tehnyt selväksi, miten ”oikeita” tieteitä ovat luonnontieteet, siinä missä ”pehmeät” tieteet, kuten yhteiskuntatieteet ja humanistiset alat ovat lähinnä ideologista hömppää ja propagandaa.

   Maikkarin toimittajan roolin lisäksi Puopolo ylläpitää omaa kanavaansa youtubes-sa, jossa hän kuvaa itseään ”kaiken kyseenalaistajaksi”. Puopolon tubekanavalla vierailee usein hahmoja, jotka kokevat itsensä sorretuiksi uhreiksi valtavirtakes-kusteluissa, joita hallitsee tarinan mukaan liiallinen suvaitsevaisuus ja feminismi. Mitään ei nykyään saa sanoa, kuuluu keskeinen viesti. Kyseisellä kanavalla sen sijaan kerrotaan totuuksia, joita muut eivät uskalla käsitellä.

   Puopolo on viimeksi ottanut kantaa oikeisiin ja vääriin tieteisiin Twitterissä hetki sitten tuomalla esiin, miten:

   ”Faktoja on luonnontieteissä paljon, yhteiskuntatieteissä vähän ja humanismissa tuskin ollenkaan.”

   Puopolo kritisoi twiitissään ”faktojen” latelemista erilaisissa keskusteluissa, koska ainoat faktat ovat hänen mielestään sellaisia, jotka tutkijat ovat jo ratkaisseet, koska ne eivät ole millään järjellisillä tavoilla epäiltävissä. Faktoista ei siis vallitse erimielisyyttä, koska ne otetaan annettuna tutkijayhteisössä.

   Yksittäisen twiitin avulla on mahdollista levittää varsin nopeasti ja tehokkaasti useita piiloviestejä seuraajilleen,jotka eivät päällisin puolin niistä käy ilmi. Ei liene kohtuuton oletus, että Puopolon viestinnän tarkoitus on kertoa, miten muut kuin luonnontieteet ovat lähinnä ideologista propagandaa eikä niistä ole juuri mitään hyötyä kellekään. Näin ainakin kärkkäimmissä tulkinnoissa.

   Joitain vuosia sitten pelitutkija ja filosofi Jonne Arjoranta kävi läpi syitä, miksi niin pieni joukko tutkijoita on ylipäätään vaivautunut kommentoimaan tämän tyyppisiä heittoja. Keskeinen tekijä on Arjorannan mukaan niin kutsuttu Brandolinin laki: vaiva, joka täytyy nähdä totaalisen välinpitämättömän ja tietämättömän mielipi-teen muodostamiseen on vain murto-osa siitä vaivasta, joka täytyy nähdä samai-sen mielipiteen aukkojen osoittamiseen.Monilla ei yksinkertaisesti ole aikaa. Siksi letkautukset, yksinkertaistukset ja meemit leviävätkin niin tehokkaasti. Sen sijaan esimerkiksi koko elämänsä jotakin aihetta tutkinut henkilö saattaa näkyä julkisuudessa aina silloin tällöin. Jos koskaan.

   Käydään tässä kirjoituksessa läpi Puopolon mielipiteiden aukkoja siitäkin huolimatta, että olen mahdollisesti tulkinnut väärin hänen viestinsä.

   Kaikkien tietämän asian esittäminen suurena paljastuksena

   Surkuhupaista twiitissä oli se, että Puopolo esitti havainnon, jonka itse asiassa tietävät jo yhteiskuntatieteiden perusteiden opiskelijatkin. Tiede ei tuota koskaan ultimaattisia faktoja maailmasta. Ei tarvitse olla edes minkään alan opiskelija tai tutkija tietääkseen tätä asiaa,jos on vain utelias maailmaa kohtaan.Tällainen kriit-tisyys tiedettä kohtaan on jokaisen korkeakouluopiskelijan, tutkijan ja professorin täysin normaalia arkitoimintaa.

   Käytännössä twiitissä oli kyse retorisesta keinosta, jossa otetaan kaikkien jo en-tuudestaan tietämä asia,esitetään se uutena havaintona, tarkoituksena aiheuttaa kohua.Hyvin samankaltainen tapaus nähtiin joitain vuosia sitten,kun suomalainen evoluutiopsykologian dosentti antoi ymmärtää, että nykyaikainen lääketiede on pielessä, koska erinäisiä mielenterveysongelmia ei hoideta liikunnalla ja ruokava-liolla. Todellisuudessa terveelliset elämäntavat, kuten liikunta ja ruokavalio kuuluvat tälläkin hetkellä näiden sairauksien hoitosuosituksiin.

   Jos itse käyttäytyy siten, että yhteiskuntatieteelliset teoriat ovat faktoja, ei voi syyttää tiedettä

   Ensimmäinen syy sille, miksi Puopolo epäonnistuu kritiikissään on hänen oma aktiivinen toimintansa. Puopolo nimittäin itse omalla toiminnallaan tuo jatkuvasti ilmi,miten hän pitää monia yhteiskuntatieteellisiä teorioita, tuloksia ja hypoteeseja tosiasioina, faktoina. Otetaan muutama esimerkki.

   Esimerkki 1

   Kesäkuussa 2020 Puopolo twiittasi kirjoituksesta Scientific American -lehdessä. Kirjoitus käsitteli ihmisten persoonallisuuspiirteitä ja sitä,miten psykologia tieteen- alana on pystynyt määrittelemään persoonallisuustyypin, joka on taipuvainen ”uhriutumiseen”.

   ”Taipumus uhriutumiseen on psykologien erikseen määrittelemä persoonallisuuden tyyppi.”

   Joillekin voi tulla yllätyksenä, että psykologia on yhteiskuntatiedettä. Psykologia ei ole luonnontiede. Persoonallisuuden ulottuvuudet ovat kenties stereotyyppisin esimerkki sosiaalisesta konstruktionismista, josta on tullut woken lisäksi yksi kes-keisistä konservatiiviänkyröiden möröistä. Ilman ihmisten sosiaalista kanssakäy-mistä ja sopimista minkäänlaisia ”haitallisia” tai ”hyviä” persoonallisuuspiirteitä ei nimittäin olisi edes olemassa. Tietynlaisen persoonan ”haitallisuus” määrittyy aina suhteessa toisiin ihmisiin.

   Puopolo siis siteeraa käytännössä faktana varsin sosiaalisesti konstruoituja tutki-mustuloksia psykologian piiristä, joka on kenties stereotyyppisin yhteiskuntatiede sosiologian jälkeen.

   Esimerkki 2

   Huhtikuussa 2022 Puopolo twiittasi taloustieteellisiä näkemyksiään. Puopolo otti kantaa velkakeskusteluun todeten, että julkisen talouden alijäämät ovat pois tule-vilta sukupolvilta. Taloustiede on niin ikään aivan yhteiskuntatiede. Julkisen velan merkitys ei myöskään ole mikään erityisen ratkaistu kiistojen kohde, josta esi-merkkinä useiden taloustieteilijöiden kommentit kevään 2023 velkavaalikeskus-telussa. Asiantuntijat pitivät velkapuhetta ja velkahysteriaa ylimitoitettuna ja epä-rationaalisena. Eittämättä jotkut toiset asiantuntijat olisivat olleet eri mieltä. Joka tapauksessa asia ei ole minkäänlainen fakta ainakaan Puopolon tarkoittamassa mielessä. Se, miten paljon jonkin tietyn suuruinen velka tai velkaantumisnopeus on poissa tulevilta sukupolvilta on äärimmäisen spekulatiivista.

   Puopolo joka tapauksessa käyttäytyy siten, kuin hänen yhteiskuntatieteeseen pohjautuva mielipiteensä olisi tosiasia, fakta.

   Esimerkki 3

   Puopolo vaikuttamistoimintaan kuuluu oleellisena osana sen todistelu, että woke-tukseen perustuva sensuuri yliopistoilla on totta. Syyskuussa 2021 Puopolo twiit-tasi, miten nyt on viimeinkin kunnon dataa ja todistusaineistoa yliopistojen woket-tamisesta ainakin Yhdysvalloissa. Puopolo jakoi suomalaisen Yhdysvalloissa opettavan sosiologin Jukka Savolaisen päivityksen, jossa taas viitattiin amerikka-laisen Fire -järjestön keräämään tietokantaan. Fire on järjestö, joka ylläpitää ja tutkii väitettyjä sananvapausloukkauksia yhdysvaltalaisessa koulutusmaailmassa ja ajaa väitettyjen uhrien asiaa.

   ”Tutkimuksessa” tekijät olivat koodanneet (tulkinneet) raportoituja sananvapau-den loukkaamisyrityksiä joko vasemmistolaiseen ja oikeistolaiseen toimintaan. He olivat löytäneet yhteensä 264 “hyökkäystä”, joista 264 oli luokiteltavissa ”vasemmistoon” ja 147 ”oikeistoon”.

   Kyseessä ei siis ollut tutkimus vaan amerikkalaisen sananvapausjärjestön oma tietokanta, johon he luokittelevat omalla tulkinnallaan, mihin aatteeseen rapor-toidut tapaukset liittyvät. Poliittisten motiivien tulkinta on varsin yhteiskuntatieteel-lisesti virittynyttä toimintaa, joka vaatii tilastollisten jakaumien lisäksi myös laadul-lista otetta. Kuitenkin Puopolo käyttäytyy siten, kuin tällaisen toiminnan kautta saadut tulokset olisivat tosiasioita, faktoja.

   Esimerkki 4

   Vuonna 2018 Puopolo osallistui keskusteluun parittelukumppaneiden määrän määrittymisestä.  Puopolo siteerasi itsevarmasti tutkimusta vuodelta 1978:

   ”Naisen valikoivuus myös jarruttaa miehen todellista kumppaneiden määrää. Sama mekanismi ei toimi homoyhteisöissä. Kyselytutkimus vuodelta 1978 homojen seksikumppaneiden määrästä lifetime (ennen HIV:tä): yli 50% yli 500.”

   Kyselytutkimus on kenties yksi klassisimmista yhteiskuntatieteellisistä tiedonke-ruumenetelmistä. Yhteiskuntatieteisiin on tämän johdosta kehitetty jopa maail mankuulu analyysiohjelma SPSS (statistical package for social sciences), jonka käyttöä harjoitellaan lähes jokaisen yhteiskuntatieteen menetelmäkursseilla.

   Puopolo käyttäytyy jälleen siten, kuin yhteiskuntatieteellisesti saatu tutkimustulos olisi tosiasia, fakta. Todellisuudessa esimerkiksi kyselytutkimuksiin sisältyy aina mahdollisuuksia virheellisiin johtopäätöksiin.

   Esimerkkejä voidaan varmasti löytää muitakin, jos jaksaisimme penkoa twiittisei-nää. Puopolo itse asiassa nojaa jopa niin vahvasti erilaisin yhteiskuntatieteellisiin teorioihin, hypoteeseihin ja tutkimustuloksiin, että on todennäköistä, että näillä on ollut jopa merkittävä vaikutus hänen oman poliittisen ideologiansa ja visionsa muodostumiseen. Näin lienee myös lukuisten muiden ihmisten kohdalla.

   Ei siis huonosti saavutettu tulos yhteiskuntatieteiltä, voisi joku sanoa.

   Yhteiskunta- ja ihmistieteet ovat merkityksellisiä, vaikka ne eivät ennustaisikaan ihmisen käytöstä

   Puopolon yhteiskuntatieteellisessä kritiikissä lienee keskeistä se, etteivät yhteis-kuntatieteet ole pystyneet tuottamaan yhtä vakuuttavia ja paikkansapitäviä teori-oita ihmisen toiminnan syy-seuraussuhteista. Toisin on asian laita luonnontieteis-sä. Tämä pitää täysin paikkansa. Mutta se on riittämätön argumentti sen puoles-ta, että yhteiskuntatieteet eivät voisi tuottaa merkityksellistä tietoa sosiaalisesta maailmasta tai ihmisestä.

   Kuten tieteenfilosofi Alexander Rosenberg toteaa, voidaan myös omaksua näke-mys, jonka mukaan sosiaalitieteiden tehtävä ei ole tutkia vain ihmisen toiminnan ”todellisia” syitä, mutta myös ihmisillä olevia uskomuksia ja syitä, joilla he itse pe-rustelevat toimintaansa. Joskus ihmisen omat uskomukset ja syyt myös selittävät ihmisen toimintaa, mutta eivät läheskään aina.

   Rosenberg ottaa esimerkkinä lenkkeilystä innostuneen henkilön, joka perustelee lenkkeilyharrastustaan sen terveysvaikutuksilla. Tämä on henkilön uskomus asi-asta ja omasta mielestään syy hänen toiminnalleen.Voi kuitenkin olla mahdollis-ta, että todellinen tekijä on esimerkiksi aivoperustainen tekijä, jonka johdosta hän on jäänyt koukkuun liikunnan tuomaan mielihyvään. Tässä tapauksessa henkilön uskomukset ja syyt eivät selitä hänen toimintaansa.

   Toisen juoksijan tapauksessa, joka ei ole koukussa liikunnan tuottamaan mielihy- vään, tällainen päättely ei päde. Ihmisen uskomus toimintansa hyödyistä on hänen mielessään oleva asia, joka myös selittää hänen todellista toimintaansa.

   Tästä voidaan tehdä se johtopäätös, että yhteiskuntatieteet voivat tuottaa sosiaa- lisesti mielekästä tietoa, vaikka eivät onnistuisi selittämään täysin ihmisen toimin- taa. Yhteiskuntatieteiden tehtävä on nimittäin tässä katsannossa tutkia ihmistä myös hänen omista lähtökohdistaan ja uskomuksistaan käsin. Tämän johdosta on tieteellisesti mielekästä tutkia vaikkapa kouluampujien omia motiiveja, vaikka todelliset syyt löytyisivätkin esimerkiksi yksilöllisistä lääketieteellisistä ja biologisista seikoista.

   Lopullisten faktojen puute ei tarkoita, etteikö yhteiskuntatieteellisestä tiedosta olisi hyötyä

   Tehdään ajatusleikki.Olet tilanteessa,jossa henkesi on välittömästi uhattuna. Sel- viydyt naarmutta tilanteesta, jos osaat selittää todelliset syyt sille, miksi holokaust tapahtui. Saat kysyä yhden kerran neuvoa edessä olevalta raadilta, johon kuuluu historian professori, wokekriittinen tiedetoimittaja ja nettitrolli. Keltä päätyisit kysymään neuvoa?

   Jos olet sitä mieltä, että humanistiset tieteet ovat lähinnä propagandaa, kysyt tie-tenkin asiasta hauskuuden vuoksi nettitrollilta. Koska kukaan paneelissa oleva ei omaa tietoa, joka olisi toista parempaa. Järkevä ihminen valitsee tietenkin histo-rian professorin. Moni tässä vaiheessa viimeistään hoksaa, että vaikka historia on aina tulkintaa, kaikki tulkinnat historiallisista tapahtumista eivät ole yhtä järke-viä. Humanistinen tiede siis pystyy kuin pystyykin tuottamaan arkikokemusta ja arkijärkeilyä uskottavampaa tietoa maailmasta.

   Miten esimerkiksi nykyään tiedetään, että juutalaisten kansanmurha tapahtui? Historioitsijat Michael Shermer ja Alex Grobman kävivät mm. tätä läpi varsin tun-netuksi tulleessa holocaustin kiistämistä koskevassa teoksessaan Denying histo-ry: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It (2009). Historiallisten tapahtumien todistamisessa kyse ei suinkaan ole yksittäisestä tie-donpalasesta,vaan keskeistä on todistusaineistojen konvergenssi,joka tarkoittaa, että useat eri todistusaineistot yhtenäistyvät kohti tiettyä johtopäätöstä. Itse asi-assa sama periaate on käytössä myös luonnontieteissä, kuten kosmologiassa. Historiantutkimuksessa kerätään informaatiota useista toisistaan riippumattomis- ta lähteistä. Arkeologiassa tällaisia ovat esimerkiksi kirjoitettu teksti, työkalut ja aseet, taide ja monumentit.

   Holokaustin todistamisessa seuraavat todistusaineistot ovat yhtenäistyneet kohti nykytietämystä: 1) kirjoitetut dokumentit, 2) silminnäkijähavainnot, 3) kuvat (mu-kaan lukien ilmasta otetut kuvat), 4) keskitysleirit itse ja 5) epäsuora tieto, kuten väestötiedot, joista juutalaisten määriä ennen ja jälkeen holokaustin on voitu arvioida.

   Tästä konvergenssin periaatteesta johtuen esimerkiksi kreationistien väitteet evoluutioteorian virheellisyydestä jäävät torsoiksi. He ovat esimerkiksi vaatineet, että heille pitää näyttää yksikin fossiili, joka osoittaa evoluutiossa tapahtuvan muutoksen. Yksi fossiili ei ole koskaan todistanut evoluutioteoriaa, joten sellaisen puute ei myöskään tarkoita, että teoria on väärä. Samoin holokaustin kieltäjät vetoavat usein yksittäisiin kappaleisiin ja tapahtumiin yrittäessään todistella, että sitä ei koskaan tapahtunut.

   Eräs esimerkki tästä oli,kun toimittaja ja dokumentaarikko David Cole epäili holo- caustin paikkansapitävyyttä, koska Mauthausenin keskitysleirillä olleen kaasu-kammion oven lukko ei toiminut. Yksinkertainen faktantarkistus olisi paljastanut, että ovi ei itse asiassa ollut edes alkuperäinen vaan replika. Vaikka se olisikin ollut autenttinen, ei se silti olisi todistanut yhtään mitään.

   Tästä jo nähdään, että sataprosenttisten faktojen puute ei kerro yhtään mitään siitä,voidaanko yhteiskuntatieteissä ja humanistisissa tieteissä tuottaa tieteellisen menetelmän avulla merkityksellistä tietoa. Tietoa esimerkiksi menneisyyden hir-muteoista voidaan käyttää ymmärrykseen kartuttamiseen siitä, mitkä mekanismit ja tekijät ovat (todennäköisesti) olleet myötävaikuttamassa tapahtumiin. Tätä tietoa ei voida tuottaa tekemällä kokeita laboratoriossa.

   Yksi syy sille, miksi yhteiskuntatieteet voivat olla hyödyllisiä liittyy siihen, että ne itse asiassa hyödyntävät monia luonnontieteellisiä periaatteita. Yhteiskuntatie-teelliselle tutkimukselle on varsin tyypillistä empiria: hankitaan dataa oikeasta maailmasta, jonka avulla testataan hypoteeseja. Eräs tapa tehdä tätä ovat kyselytutkimukset.

   Toisin sanoen ei tarvitse tutkia viiden miljoonan suomalaisen tai 300 miljoonan yhdysvaltalaisen näkemyksiä, jotta voidaan tehdä mielekkäitä ja yllättävän tark-koja arvioita siitä,mitä väestö on vaikkapa mieltä jostakin asiasta.Otoksesta yleis- tämisen taustalla ovat vankat matemaattiset lainalaisuudet. Esimerkiksi suurten lukujen laki kertoo, että kun poimitaan satunnaisesti tarpeeksi monta yksikköä otokseen, niistä laskettu keskiarvo on yllättävän lähellä todellista keskiarvoa. Ma-tematiikan professori Samuli Siltanen onkin todennut, että samat lainalaisuudet selittävät myös sitä, miksi ilmastoa pitkän aikavälin keskiarvoina voidaan hyvinkin tehokkaasti ennustaa, vaikka yksittäisen päivän sään ennustaminen jo viikon parin päähän on hyvin epätarkkaa.

   Tästäkin voidaan vetää se johtopäätös, että yhteiskuntatieteelliset menetelmät ja tulokset voivat kuin voivatkin tuottaa mielekästä tietoa sosiaalisesta maailmasta, vaikka niihin sisältyy aina virheen mahdollisuus.

   Yhteenveto

   Tämänkin tekstin kirjoittaminen osoitti Brandolinin lain varsin hyvin.Tähän käytet- ty aika oli moninkertainen yhden wokekriittisen tiedetoimittajan twiittiin nähden, jolla hän pystyy levittämään monenlaista sanomaa ja piilotettujakin oletuksia varsin nopeasti ja tehokkaasti. Mitkä olivat hänen keskeiset virheensä?

   1. Yleisesti tiedossa olevan asian esittäminen suurena paljastuksena, joka on kuitenkin lähinnä retorinen taktiikka.
   2. Hän itse toimii ja käyttäytyy monien meidän muidenkin tavoin siten, kuin lukuisat yhteiskuntatieteelliset teoriat, hypoteesit ja tulokset olisivat faktoja. Yhteiskuntatieteet ja humanistiset alat ovat jo tästä näkökulmasta hyödyllisiä. Ne auttavat kaikkia meitä navigoimaan maailmassa ja muodostamaan itsellemme sopivan ideologian ja vision.
   3. Yhteiskuntatieteet ja kulttuuritieteet tutkivat ihmisten toiminnan syy-seuraus-suhteiden lisäksi ihmistä hänen omista lähtökohdistaan. Se on sosiaalisesti ja tieteellisesti merkityksellistä tietoa.
   4. Yhteiskuntatieteet ja humanistiset tieteet auttavat tekemään merkityksellisiä johtopäätöksiä mm. menneisyydestä ja ihmisen toiminnasta siitä huolimatta, että ne eivät usein pystykään tuottamaan lopullisia faktoja.

   Olisi virkistävää, jos kaiken kyseenalaistajaksi itseään kutsuva henkilö soveltaisi toisinaan tätä periaatettaan myös itseensä.

    

   ***

   https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/

   

   " How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist

   It did no such thing — but the result has become conventional wisdom nevertheless

   By Steve Taylor on December 6, 2019

   

   Credit: Getty Images

   In the second half of the 19th century,scientific discoveries, in particular, Darwin’s theory of evolution, meant that Christian beliefs were no longer feasible as a way of explaining the world. The authority of the Bible as an explanatory text was fa-tally damaged. The new findings of science could be utilized to provide an alter-native conceptual system to make sense of the world - a system that insisted that nothing existed apart from basic particles of matter,and that all phenomena could be explained in terms of the organization and the interaction of these particles.

   One of the most fervent of late 19th century materialists, T.H. Huxley, described human beings as “conscious automata” with no free will.As he explained in 1874, “Volitions do not enter into the chain of causation…. The feeling that we call voli-tion is not the cause of a voluntary act, but the symbol of that state of the brain which is the immediate cause."

   This was a very early formulation of an idea that has become commonplace amongst modern scientists and philosophers who hold similar materialist views: that free will is an illusion. According to Daniel Wegner, for instance, “The expe-rience of willing an act arises from interpreting one’s thought as the cause of the act.” In other words, our sense of making choices or decisions is just an aware-ness of what the brain has already decided for us. When we become aware of the brain’s actions, we think about them and falsely conclude that our intentions have caused them. You could compare it to a king who believes he is making all his own decisions, but is constantly being manipulated by his advisors and officials, who whisper in his ear and plant ideas in his head. 

   Many people believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person conscious-ly decides to move. In Libet’s experiments, participants were asked to perform a simple task such as pressing a button or flexing their wrist. Sitting in front of a timer, they were asked to note the moment at which they were consciously aware of the decision to move, while EEG electrodes attached to their head monitored their brain activity.

   Libet showed consistently that there was unconscious brain activity associated with the action—a change in EEG signals that Libet called “readiness potential” — for an average of half a second before the participants were aware of the deci-sion to move. This experiment appears to offer evidence of Wegner’s view that decisions are first made by the brain,and there is a delay before we become con- scious of them, at which point we attribute our own conscious intention to the act.         

   However, if we look more closely, Libet’s experiment is full of problematic issues. For example, it relies on the participants’ own recording of when they feel the in-tention to move.One issue here is that there may be a delay between the impulse to act and their recording of it — after all, this means shifting their attention from their own intention to the clock.In addition,it is debatable whether people are able to accurately record the moment of their decision to move. Our subjective aware-ness of decisions is very unreliable. If you try the experiment yourself — and you can do it right now, just by holding out your own arm, and deciding at some point to flex your wrist — you’ll become aware that it’s difficult to pinpoint the moment at which you make the decision. 

   An even more serious issue with the experiment is that it is by no means clear that the electrical activity of the “readiness potential” is related to the decision to move, and to the actual movement. Some researchers have suggested that the readiness potential could just relate to the act of paying attention to the wrist or a button, rather the decision to move. Others have suggested that it only reflects the expectation of some kind of movement, rather being related to a specific moment. In a modified version of Libet’s experiment (in which participants were asked to press one of two buttons in response to images on a computer screen), participants showed “readiness potential” even before the images came up on the screen, suggesting that it was not related to deciding which button to press. 

   Still others have suggested that the area of the brain where the "readiness po-tential" occurs — the supplementary motor area, or SMA — is usually associated with imagining movements rather than actually performing them. The experience of willing is usually associated with other areas of the brain (the parietal areas). 

   And finally,in another modified version of Libet’s experiment, participants showed readiness potential even when they made a decision not to move, which again casts doubt on the assumption that the readiness potential is actually registering the brain’s “decision” to move. 

   A further, more subtle, issue has been suggested by psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist. Libet's experiment seems to assume that the act of volition con-sists of clear-cut decisions, made by a conscious, rational mind. But McGilchrist points out that decisions are often made in a more fuzzy, ambiguous way. They can be made on a partly intuitive, impulsive level, without clear conscious aware-ness. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you haven't made the decision.

   As McGilchrist puts it, Libet’s apparent findings are only problematic "if one ima-gines that, for me to decide something, I have to have willed it with the conscious part of my mind. Perhaps my unconscious is every bit as much 'me'". Why shouldn't your will be associated with deeper, less conscious areas of your mind (which are still you)? You might sense this if, while trying Libet’s experiment, you find your wrist just seeming to move of its own accord. You feel that you have somehow made the decision, even if not wholly consciously. 

   Because of issues such as these - and others that I don’t have space to mention - it seems strange that such a flawed experiment has become so influential, and has been (mis)used so frequently as evidence against the idea of free will. You might ask: why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”)

   This is probably because the nonexistence of free will seems a logical extension of some of the primary assumptions of the materialist paradigm - such as the idea that our sense of self is an illusion, and that consciousness and mental activity are reducible to neurological activity. However, as I suggest in my book Spiritual Science, it is entirely possible that these assumptions are false. The mind may be more than just a shadow of the brain, and free will may not be an illusion but an invaluable human attribute, which can be cultivated and whose development makes our lives more meaningful and purposeful.

    

   ***  

    

   http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/FlatMessageIndex/363882?page=2#364093

   Se parhaiten nauraa, joka puoskaritieteelle kuoppaa kaivaa:

   New brain research refutes results of earlier studies that cast doubts on free will.

   Tässä tutkimusuutisessa esitelty tutkimus kumoaa nk Libetin kokeen tulokset. Benjamin Libet tulkitsi 80-luvulla tekemiensä kokeiden osoittavan, että aivoissa tapahtuu ensin tietoisuuden ulkopuolella päätös, ja vasta tämän jälkeen tulemme tietoiseksi jo "puolestamme tehdystä" päätöksestä. Tämän hän teki sillä perus-teella, että EEG-mittauksissa näkyi negatiivinen vaste jo ennen tietoista päätöstä ("päätöksestä tietoiseksi tulemista"). Uuden tutkimuksen valossa tämä negatiivi-nen vaste liittyy tietoiseen päätöksentekoprosessiin yhteydessä olevaan spon-taaniin neuraaliseen aktivaatioon. Vasten Libetin arvausta tämä EEG-vaste liittyy siis kuitenkin tietoisiin prosesseihin, ei alitajuisiin.

   ttps://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-brain-refutes-results-earlier-free.html

   August 7, 2012

   

   New brain research refutes results of earlier studies that cast doubts on free will

   by Bob Yirka , Medical Xpress

   (Medical Xpress) -- When people find themselves having to make a decision, the assumption is that the thoughts, or voice that is the conscious mind at work, deli-berate, come to a decision, and then act. This is because for most people, that’s how the whole process feels. But back in the early 1980’s,an experiment conduc- ted by Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist with the University of California, cast doubt on this idea.

   He and his colleagues found in watching EEG readings of volunteers who had been asked to make a spontaneous movement (it didn’t matter what kind) that brain activity prior to the movement indicated that the subconscious mind came to a decision about what movement to make before the person experienced the feeling of making the decision themselves. This, Libet argued, showed that people don’t have nearly the degree of free will regarding decision making, as has been thought. Since then, no one has really refuted the theory.

   Now new research by a European team has found evidence that the brain activi-ty recorded by Libet and other’s is due to something else, and thus, as they write in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that people really do make decisions in their conscious mind.

   To come to this conclusion, the team looked at how the brain responds to other decision forcing stimuli, such as what to make of visual input. In such instances, earlier research has shown that the brain amasses neural activity in preparation for a response, giving us something to choose from. Thus the response unfolds as the data is turned into imagery our brains can understand and we then inter-pret what we see based on what we’ve learned in the past. The researchers sug-gest that choosing to move an arm or leg or finger,works the same way.Our brain gets a hint that we are contemplating making a movement, so it gets ready. And it’s only when a critical mass occurs that decision making actually takes place.

   To test this theory, the team built a computer model of what they called a neural accumulator, then watched as it behaved in a way that looked like it was building up to a potential action. Next,they repeated the original experiment conducted by Libet et al but added another element, a click noise. Each volunteer was asked to make a decision right away if they heard the click while they were mulling over their choices. The thinking was that for those who had built up a neural response already and were near the threshold, a faster response should come about, and in looking at the EEG data and comparing them to clicks, that’s exactly what they found. This, the team says, proves that it was still the conscious mind making the decision; the subconscious was just doing background work to get ready.

   More information: An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement, PNAS, Published online before print August 6, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210467109

   Abstract

   A gradual buildup of neuronal activity known as the “readiness potential” reliably precedes voluntary self-initiated movements, in the average time locked to move-ment onset. This buildup is presumed to reflect the final stages of planning and preparation for movement. Here we present a different interpretation of the pre-movement buildup. We used a leaky stochastic accumulator to model the neural decision of “when” to move in a task where there is no specific temporal cue, but only a general imperative to produce a movement after an unspecified delay on the order of several seconds. According to our model,when the imperative to pro- duce a movement is weak, the precise moment at which the decision threshold is crossed leading to movement is largely determined by spontaneous subthreshold fluctuations in neuronal activity. Time locking to movement onset ensures that these fluctuations appear in the average as a gradual exponential-looking increase in neuronal activity. Our model accounts for the behavioral and electro-encephalography data recorded from human subjects performing the task and also makes a specific prediction that we confirmed in a second electroencephalo- graphy experiment: Fast responses to temporally unpredictable interruptions should be preceded by a slow negative-going voltage deflection beginning well before the interruption itself, even when the subject was not preparing to move at that particular moment.

   Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

   © 2012 Medical Xpress "

   ***
   
   https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/

   

   Why the Classical Argument Against Free Will Is a Failure

   Despite bold philosophical and scientific claims, there’s still no good reason to doubt the existence of free will.

   

   By: Mark Balaguer

   n the last several years, a number of prominent scientists have claimed that we have good scientific reason to believe that there’s no such thing as free will - that free will is an illusion. If this were true, it would be less than splendid.And it would be surprising,t oo, because it really seems like we have free will. It seems that what we do from moment to moment is determined by conscious decisions that we freely make.

   We need to look very closely at the arguments that these scientists are putting forward to determine whether they really give us good reason to abandon our belief in free will.But before we do that, it would behoove us to have a look at a much older argument against free will — an argument that’s been around for centuries.

   

    

   This article is adapted from Mark Balaguer’s book “Free Will,” an MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series title.

    

   The older argument against free will is based on the assumption that determi-nism is true. Determinism is the view that every physical event is completely caused by prior events together with the laws of nature. Or, to put the point differently, it’s the view that every event has a cause that makes it happen in the one and only way that it could have happened.

    

   If determinism is true, then as soon as the Big Bang took place 13 billion years ago, the entire history of the universe was already settled.Every event that’s ever occurred was already predetermined before it occurred. And this includes human decisions.If determinism is true,then everything you’ve ever done — every choice you’ve ever made — was already predetermined before our solar system even existed. And if this is true, then it has obvious implications for free will.

   Suppose that you’re in an ice cream parlor, waiting in line, trying to decide whe-ther to order chocolate or vanilla ice cream. And suppose that when you get to the front of the line, you decide to order chocolate. Was this choice a product of your free will? Well, if determinism is true, then your choice was completely caused by prior events.The immediate causes of the decision were neural events that occurred in your brain just prior to your choice. But, of course, if determinism is true, then those neural events that caused your decision had physical causes as well; they were caused by even earlier events — events that occurred just before they did. And so on, stretching back into the past. We can follow this back to when you were a baby, to the very first events of your life. In fact, we can keep going back before that, because if determinism is true, then those first events were also caused by prior events. We can keep going back to events that occur-red before you were even conceived, to events involving your mother and father and a bottle of Chianti.

   If determinism is true, then as soon as the Big Bang took place 13 billion years ago, the entire history of the universe was already settled.

   So if determinism is true, then it was already settled before you were born that you were going to order chocolate ice cream when you got to the front of the line. And, of course, the same can be said about all of our decisions, and it seems to follow from this that human beings do not have free will.

   Let’s call this the classical argument against free will. It proceeds by assuming that determinism is true and arguing from there that we don’t have free will.

   ---

   There’s a big problem with the classical argument against free will. It just as-sumes that determinism is true. The idea behind the argument seems to be that determinism is just a commonsense truism. But it’s actually not a commonsense truism. One of the main lessons of 20th-century physics is that we can’t know by common sense, or by intuition, that determinism is true. Determinism is a contro-versial hypothesis about the workings of the physical world. We could only know that it’s true by doing some high-level physics. Moreover — and this is another lesson of 20th-century physics - as of right now,we don’t have any good evidence for determinism. In other words, our best physical theories don’t answer the question of whether determinism is true.

   During the reign of classical physics (or Newtonian physics), it was widely belie-ved that determinism was true. But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, phy-sicists started to discover some problems with Newton’s theory, and it was even-tually replaced with a new theory - quantum mechanics. (Actually, it was replaced by two new theories, namely, quantum mechanics and relativity theory. But relati-vity theory isn’t relevant to the topic of free will.) Quantum mechanics has several strange and interesting features, but the one that’s relevant to free will is that this new theory contains laws that are probabilistic rather than deterministic. We can understand what this means very easily. Roughly speaking, deterministic laws of nature look like this:

   If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then you will get outcome O.

   But quantum physics contains probabilistic laws that look like this:

   If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then there are two different possible outcomes, namely, O1 and O2; moreover, there’s a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O1 and a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O2.

   It’s important to notice what follows from this. Suppose that we take a physical system, put it into state S, and perform experiment E on it. Now suppose that when we perform this experiment, we get outcome O1. Finally, suppose we ask the following question: “Why did we get outcome O1 instead of O2?” The impor-tant point to notice is that quantum mechanics doesn’t answer this question. It doesn’t give us any explanation at all for why we got outcome O1 instead of O2. In other words, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, it could be that nothing caused us to get result O1; it could be that this just happened.

   Now, Einstein famously thought that this couldn’t be the whole story. You’ve probably heard that he once said that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.”

   What he meant when he said this was that the fundamental laws of nature can’t be probabilistic. The fundamental laws, Einstein thought, have to tell us what will happen next, not what will probably happen, or what might happen. So Einstein thought that there had to be a hidden layer of reality, below the quantum level, and that if we could find this hidden layer,we could get rid of the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics and replace them with deterministic laws, laws that tell us what will happen next, not just what will probably happen next. And, of course, if we could do this — if we could find this hidden layer of reality and these determi-nistic laws of nature — then we would be able to explain why we got outcome O1 instead of O2.

   But a lot of other physicists - most notably, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr - disagreed with Einstein. They thought that the quantum layer of reality was the bottom layer. And they thought that the fundamental laws of nature - or at any rate, some of these laws — were probabilistic laws. But if this is right, then it means that at least some physical events aren’t deterministically caused by prior events. It means that some physical events just happen. For instance, if Heisen-berg and Bohr are right, then nothing caused us to get outcome O1 instead of O2; there was no reason why this happened; it just did.

   The debate between determinists like Einstein and indeterminists like Heisenberg and Bohr has never been settled.

   The debate between Einstein on the one hand and Heisenberg and Bohr on the other is crucially important to our discussion.Einstein is a determinist.If he’s right, then every physical event is predetermined - or in other words,completely caused by prior events. But if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then determinism is false. On their view, not every event is predetermined by the past and the laws of na-ture; some things just happen, for no reason at all. In other words, if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then indeterminism is true.

   And here’s the really important point for us. The debate between determinists like Einstein and indeterminists like Heisenberg and Bohr has never been settled. We don’t have any good evidence for either view.Quantum mechanics is still our best theory of the subatomic world, but we just don’t know whether there’s another layer of reality, beneath the quantum layer. And so we don’t know whether all physical events are completely caused by prior events. In other words, we don’t know whether determinism or indeterminism is true. Future physicists might be able to settle this question, but as of right now, we don’t know the answer.

   But now notice that if we don’t know whether determinism is true or false, then this completely undermines the classical argument against free will. That argu-ment just assumed that determinism is true. But we now know that there is no good reason to believe this. The question of whether determinism is true is an open question for physicists. So the classical argument against free will is a fai-lure - it doesn’t give us any good reason to conclude that we don’t have free will.

   ---

   Despite the failure of the classical argument, the enemies of free will are undeter-red. They still think there’s a powerful argument to be made against free will. In fact, they think there are two such arguments. Both of these arguments can be thought of as attempts to fix the classical argument, but they do this in completely different ways.

   The first new-and-improved argument against free will - which is a scientific argu-ment - starts with the observation that it doesn’t matter whether the full-blown hy-pothesis of determinism is true because it doesn’t matter whether all events are predetermined by prior events. All that matters is whether our decisions are pre-determined by prior events. And the central claim of the first new-and-improved argument against free will is that we have good evidence (from studies perfor-med by psychologists and neuroscientists) for thinking that, in fact, our decisions are predetermined by prior events.

   The second new-and-improved argument against free will - which is a philosophi-cal argument, not a scientific argument - relies on the claim that it doesn’t matter whether determinism is true because indeterminism is just as incompatible with free will as determinism is. The argument for this is based on the claim that if our decisions aren’t determined, then they aren’t caused by anything, which means that they occur randomly. And the central claim of the second new-and-improved argument against free will is that if our decisions occur randomly, then they just happen to us, and so they’re not the products of our free will.

   My own view is that neither of these new-and-improved arguments succeeds in showing that we don’t have free will. But it takes a lot of work to undermine these two arguments. In order to undermine the scientific argument, we need to explain why the relevant psychological and neuroscientific studies don’t in fact show that we don’t have free will.And in order to undermine the philosophical argument, we need to explain how a decision could be the product of someone’s free will - how the outcome of the decision could be under the given person’s control - even if the decision wasn’t caused by anything.

   So, yes, this would all take a lot of work. Maybe I should write a book about it.

   ---

   Mark Balaguer is Professor in the Department of Philosophy at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of several books, including “Free Will,” from which this article is adapted.

    

   ***
   
   https://ristojuhanikoivula.vuodatus.net/lue/2025/01/eras-aivoteoria

   lauantai, 25. tammikuu 2025

   Eräs "aivoteoria"...

   file:///C:/Users/Huawei/Downloads/InfoComp.pdf

   " See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14238699

   42 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS

   
   Impact of information compression on intellectual activities in the brain

   
   Article in International Journal of Neural Systems ·

   October 1996
   Source: PubMed
   CITATIONS 0
   READS 103

   
   1 author: Jarl-Thure Eriksson
   Åbo Akademi University

   " ...In Eriksson's view, the understanding and modelling of complex systems required better understanding of the human mental functions. In his article “Impact of informa-tion compression on intellectual activities in the brain” in 1996 Eriksson presented an information theory based model for cognition. According to the model, humans per-ceive the real world through the representations of neural networks that are formed by cumulating experiences and learning processes. When brain functions are active, the cerebral cortex processes large volumes of information. Conscious thought is a result of a massive information compression process, which originates from external sensations, such as sight and hearing, or from internal thoughts or associations, and is governed by the context and the emotional state. The condensation of relevant in-formation,which takes place in the subconscious,generates instructions for reactions as well as new cognitive input for the cortex.

   A conscious thought itself should be considered as the control feedback of what the subconscious has already determined. "

   RJK: Bullshit.

    

   " Impact of information compression on intellectual activities in the brain

   
   Jarl-Thure Eriksson

   Paper published in the International Tampere University of Technology Journal of Neural Systems, Vol. 7,
   Email: j[email protected] No 2 (September 1996) pp. 543-550

   
   "What is...is identical with the thought that recognizes it"

   
   - Parmenides of Elea, ca. 480 BC1
    

   Imaging and modelling represent an action of information compression, which is inevitable for a complex system in order to process and communicate data. Humans are such complex systems. Sensory and body reaction information is processed by the brain, the overall infor-mation rate being 10^11-10^12 bit/s. Consciousness is the result of massive information compression, the attentional data rate being 10-14 bit/s. The primary purpose of the conscious state is to control the interaction with the environment. In humans, this ability facilitates the projection of the future horizon far away from the next instant.

   Thinking and reasoning can be thought of as a process of retrospective control. Retrospec-tive in the sense that the subconscious has already decided what is to come next. "

    

   RJK: If "subconscious has already decided", the "decision" is not concscious at all.

   This is the false "Benjamin Libet´s theory of consciousness", based on Hans Berger´s Nazistic  "physical conciousness" pseudotheory.

   This crucial mistake is enough to make the whole presentation bullshit.
   Consciousness is not coded in digital form in the brain. It is not like genetic code.
   
   J.-T.E.: " In the long run, however, conscious thought influences the cortical context potentiation, thus providing steering to the associative process. The paper emphasizes that all cognitive operations are restricted to the bioelectrical signal processing in the brain.

   Accordingly, mental models and scientific theories will always be constrained by this fact. The last subject of this paper deals with the interaction between the brain, the glands and the rest of the body. It is interpreted that qualia are the result of a complex feedback interaction between those parts, a self-supported process close to a singularity point.

   
   1. Scope and objectives

   
   All biologic organisms form complex systems wherein millions of internal functions strive towards a simple output. By simplicity we refer to the amount of information needed to perform a certain action as compared to the information used in the internal processes. The primary outputs aim at securing the continuity of the organism by self-preservation and re-production. In this paper we attempt to present a holistic model of the information interplay between on one hand a human being and the environment and on the other hand brain centers and the rest of the body. Due to natural selection the hierarchial structure of infor-mation flow is brought to optimal rationality, meaning that subsystems are controlled partly by internal signals and partly by communicated information. This can be considered as a general feature of a complex system, namely that subsystems of partial independence form a resource flow network while coordination and coherence is provided by an information network. Hence it is natural to consider biological systems as fundamental study objects for complexity. On the other hand, universal regularities of emergent self-organizing physical systems can be applied to living entireties. "

    

   RJK: Eriksson käyttää sanaa emergentti kari enqvistiläisessä redukstionistisessa hö-lynpölymerkityksessä "heikkona emergenssinä", joka oli tieteessä pelkkiä metodisia "kuvausten ominaisuuksia" ilman todellista materiaalista sisältöä.

   2

   J.-T.E.: One main interest of this paper will be to consider the human being as a part of a community.Why is he or she acting in accordance with social agreements? What is the minimum information exchange needed? Which are the internal mental requirements for a successful interplay? These are questions we try to tackle. Simultaneously we will touch some of the most intriguing issues of the human mind, consciousness, intentionality and self-awareness.

   
   What purpose do these characteristics have? - presently a mainstream question, to which we will not find a commonly accepted answer. Here, however, we shall prag-matically claim that consciousness is a continuous process of displaying strategies for action. "
   
   RJK: Aivokuorellisten eläinten tajuisuus voitaneen ilman periaatteellista virhettä ym-märtää noin. Ihmisen kielellisrakenteinen tajunta, Ivan Pavlovin 2. signaalisysteemi, on kuitenkin monimutkaisempi juttu, koska se on omaksuttu isolta osin kieliyhteisön osapuoleen samanlaisesta tajunnasta ja se on ihmispersoonallisuuden emergenssi-tasoltaan sosiaalinen olemassaolomuoto, joka ei "palaudu" eli redusoidu biologiaan eikä fysiikkaan.
   
   
   J.-T.E.: " The comparison to virtual reality simulation is very tempting, but the process is far more complicated than running a computer model in order to look into a future scenario.

   Consciousness is the result of a massive compression of information wherein incoming sensory signals alert different centers by creating recognition patterns of objects through vision, sound, smelling, feeling or whatever the stimulation might be. The primary purpose is to control action or rather, reaction. This ability has, due to the development, reached a very high level in humans facilitating the transfer of the future horizon far away from the next instant.

   Intentionality can be characterized as an agenda for "keep going". That is an inbuilt arrow of action, which helps to maintain conscious continuity,but which also prevents the individual from reaching equilibrium, ever. This has also to do with the self-organizing process of thinking always taking place in the brain.

   Self-awareness brings us close to the virtual reality scenario. By self-awareness we are able to observe ourselves as objects in different imaginative situations. Remem-bering means time travelling backwards, while planning the next vacation transfers us several months ahead in time. Self-awareness has to do with the human ability to operate consciousness with the assistance of concepts, which in themselves are compressed information of miscellaneous entireties.

   The last point to be considered is that human beings form very complex systems comprising both bioelectrical and biochemical signalling for internal communication. The brain, the body and the body glands exhibit a wholeness that is provided with a multitude of interconnected feedback loops. The over all behavior of the individual will be synergetic to it's character meaning that there is no analytic algorithm descri-bing the relation between inputs and behavior. Instead initial sensory signals will always be confronted with a new system, the behavior of which depends critically on the previous state and the emergent trajectories of brain functions. Internally the feedback loops between brain, glands, heart, lungs etc. form an undisconnectable entirety as long as we talk about a living creature. These loops are most probably responsible for "non-computational" features such as emotions and pain.

    

   2. Complexity

   
   2.1 Information

   
   The word "information" has a very wide use, often it is the substitute for "signal" or "data" or just a common message. Strictly interpreted information refers to the part of a message that is new to the receiver and that accordingly causes a reaction. "

   
   
   RJK: This means stimulus signals in a reflex system.

    

   J.-T.E.: " Without a reaction it will only be new memory data. However, it has been extremely difficult to define the minimum information needed for a certain message to be correctly interpreted in the receivers end. Considering disturbances in the transmission link there is always an uncertainty related to the process.

   Complex systems are based on information exchange. Without the communication between individual parts connectivity and self-organization would never emerge. By fine-tuning the necessary flow of information a system is able to undergo a conti-nuous development and to oppose the growth of entropy. It is also flexible to outer changes, provided these are not catastrophic to their character.A catastrophe means that some input signal or some boundary condition changes too much too fast.

   It is typical for a sophisticated complex system that the exchange information is co-ded in a way to maximize the capacity of the channels. The receiver utilizes as much memory data as possible.Todays coding in signal processing and telecommunication aims at a transmission of a complete representation of a certain message,e.g. a time dependent visual image. For comparison in oral communication between, say, a lec-turer and an audience, the word "sex" (approximately 6 bit) generates myriads of bits in the form of more or less emotional experiences in each listener capturing a lot of individual flavours. Future multimedia and virtual reality communication will be based on the transmission of solely new information. Context and background patterns will be locally stored and provided on request in the receiving end.

   
   2.2 Information depth

   
   In order to get a quantitive grip of the value of information several attempts have been made to define the the measure of "depth". Kolmogorov 3 tried to use the shortest string of information required to explain a phenomenon. But there is always many possibilities to shorten the string by using different algorithms, i.e. by compres-sing some of the information in, say, an equation. Charles Bennet 4 has investigated how much information is rejected during a process of compression by complexifica-tion. He coined the term "logical depth". Anyhow, there are many uncertainty factors related to the concept of information, accordingly one should consider all situations where information has to be interpreted as statistical ones.

   3

   In this paper we are interested in the compression of messages communicated between human beings. Our concern is: what is the shortest message, say M bit, to be transmitted in order to achieve the highest possible intended recognition among a certain population. For this purpose we can define a measure perceptional depth

   
   D = (M.H)-1 (1)

   
   where H is the Shannon information entropy function according to

   
   H = - SIGpi log pi (2)

   
   The interpretation of H depends on the specific case. Let me illuminate it's definition with two examples. A culturally homogeneous population is asked to list, say 5 com-posers, the question being of the form "famous composers?" (c:a 32 bit, avaraging 2 bit per letter due to redundancy). One could use only "composers?" (20 bit), then ad-ding more uncertainity,or specify "famous classic composers?" (50 bit). The answers result in certain distribution among, say, 20 (N) composer names. The factor pi (i = 1 ...N) indicates the probability for certain composer to get a vote, i.e. the ratio of the individual number of votes and the total number of votes. Complete concensus (all votes for Beethoven, N = i = 1, p i = 1) means infinite depth (H = 0).

   The interpretation of this definition is that the most valuable situation for the sender of a message is such, that a majority of the receivers draw the right conclusions. A low perception depth value would indicate that very few people understood the meaning of a communicated concept. This measure could be used to penetrate the education level of a certain society or the mixing of two cultures.

   The second example is related to pattern recognition by artificial neural networks (ANN). Take an input vector X, let Wi denote the set of weighting factors connecting X to the output vector Yi, Figure 1. Because Wi is determined according to an optimi-zation algorithm, very small discrepancies in the input X cause different recognition interpretations, i.e. alterations in Wi. Let p(Wi) denote the probability that an input X results in the set Wi.By letting M stand for the information content of X and using sta-tistical experimental data for p(Wi), we can calculate D according to equations (1) and (2). The result can be used for the evaluation of a specific neural network architecture.

   5

   

   Figure 1. Schematic representation of the probability of pattern recognition. The input X results with a certain probability pk(Wi) in pattern Yi. Distortions in X decreases the probability.

   Although the perception depth might have little practical use, the previous examples hopefully serve as metaphors of the sensitivity of pattern recognition. Small noise factors on the input side can lead to completely different interpretations. This is one component for chaos in the brain. It also emphasizes the non-deterministic character of identification by neural computing. In unchanged "laboratory conditions" compri-sing identical input signals in subsequent experiments and stable hardware (ANN) the outputs should be deterministic.

   In the real world, however, inputs are never the same and the recognition process in the brain is time and state dependent, meaning that previous states affect the outcome. If we add the idea that every recognition process follows an emergent self-organized agenda, we conclude that cognition never clings to an old track. It is the opinion of the present author that the seeds of non-deterministic, free-will, if one wants to, behaviour are to be found from these arguments. Erich Harth of Syracuse University advocates similar ideas in his book The Creative Loop 5. "
   
   RJK: Free will is based on linguistic thinking, the 2. signaling system.

   
   J.-T.E.: " 2.3 Computation in the brain

   
   Marvin Minsky once coined the saying "the brain is a computer made of meat". This somewhat provocative statement goes to the roots of one of the most intricate ques-tions in the science of cognitivity. Namely, should mental processes be considered as computational? "
   
   RJK: No.
   
   J.-T.E.: " Part of the problem is that we as human beings are not objective enough to say YES. Traditions, emotional involvement, religious relicts, etc. prevent us from confessing that complicated signal processing is taking place in our heads. Things like "mind" and "self" enhance the confusion. But the facts are that cognition requires neurons firing electrochemical signals, i.e. processing information, and specialized brain centres, of which the cortex is necessary for reasoning and predictive thought functions.

   6

   
   Even minor tissue damage reflects deviations from what is usually considered as normal behaviour. However, computation in the brain is quite different from computing in a techni-cal sense. There is no stored program controlling signal paths. The algorithm is a built-in feature of the network structure. A cognitive task progresses through thousands of parallel, locationally distributed subcenter networks.

   Artificial neural networks of today aim at imitating their biological counterparts. Working as identifiers or classifiers they come rather close, but functionally they are still very primitive. Artificial nets need strong computational support in performing procedures of optimization, back-propagation, etc.

   How the brain handle these functions is not clear, but it seems reasonable to think that a self-organized emergent progression takes place on a very short time scale. Thus bioelectri-cal actions repeat in milliseconds what is biochemically going on on the million year time scale.

   Finally,I will give some attention to modelling and simulation.A model is never the real thing. It is a representation utilizing different media to store information.The purpose of a model is to confine certain features of interest.Examples range from simple mathematical equations and numerical strings of information to sophisticated robotic models of living creatures. Simulation means performing experiments on models 6.

   One must always be aware of the fact that in the attempt to create an understanding of a complex phenomenon, e.g. global finance or Theory of Everything, the modelling process in the brain is confined to bioelectric signals and the neural network structure.If the pheno-menon does not provide computable features meeting these constraints, an understandable description is not at hand.
    

   3. The purpose of consciousness

   3.1 Difficulties to define consciousness

   Consciousness exhibits too many features to be fitted into a holistic description. As long as the physiological background of neural processes is incomplete,it is hard to believe that a sa-tisfactory theory will appear. Several philosophers on the subject have tried to define a site for consciousness 5,7.Although multiple cortex centres,assisted by the limbic system and the brain stem, are involved in a conscious process, one tend to expect that the summarizing stream of information must meet in a specific organ in order to provide awareness.Thalamus is a strong candidate,because it serves as the relay station of neuronal signals. However, we will not spend more time on this question, instead we shall recollect some relevant features.

   7

   
   It is typical for biologic neural signal processing - which has to do with the ultimate rationa-lity of natural selection - to focus on a small source of information and on the same time develop or maintain a larger area of dimmer information. This is how the eye works.

   Consciousness can be characterized by a focus, i.e. attention, and a surrounding area of awareness. The awareness is not directly connected to the attentional focus, it rather de-pends on the context currently backing or illuminating the focus. However, from experience we know that signals from the awareness area try to catch the attention, thus providing steering on conscious progression. Awareness then reflects the competition taking place in the subconscious as a part of the information compression process.

   Consciousness is normally an uninterrupted process that maintain a certain level of alert-ness despite different stages of rest (sleeping modes). The contrast with unconsciousness is very clear, even the influence of drugs on conscious behaviour is easily registered.
    

   3.2 Cognition by recognition - how consciousness works

   
   In this paragraph I will emphasize two hypothetical principles,namely, that all sensory signals must be recognized before entering consciousness and that thinking and reasoning are simulation processes aiming at the preservation of continuity.

   As Parmenides deduced around 480 BC and John A. Wheeler later has focused on, "what is", i.e. reality, "is identical with the thought that recognizes it". German philosopher Imma-nuel Kant (1724 - 1804) emphasized in the late 18th century that sensory impressions pass through a process of apprehension,reproduction and recognition before reaching awareness . So, in order to recognize the reality of his surrounding an intelligent being has to find the equivalent representation from his memory. This is also the standard agenda for pattern recognition. In the attempts to characterize consciousness a metaphoric comparison to computer simulation has been promoted by several authors 8, 9,10. In short we can say that consciousness is a continuous result display of reality simulations, in which process impulses of recognized sensory (vision, auditory, etc.) signals synchronized the "computational" output with reality. The simulation generates a surge of associative initiatives, which follow the conscious focus trajectory as a spatial information tube (awareness) ready to provide new directions for the focus line on the request of sensory information. A naive representation of these functions is shown in Figure 2.

   8

   

   
   Figure 2. A naive diagram showing the principle of pattern recognition by image comparison (massive information) and the generation of associative incentives working as virtual sensory input signals. Here "perception" means subconsciously received, but not consciously identified.

   The counter-connected monitors and videocameras symbolize the simultaneous pro-cessing of millions of bits. Different estimations suggest that the conscious focus in-formation stream is of the order 20...40 bit/s, while for instance visional input is 10^7 bit/s and the cognitive process involved in the interaction operates 10^10...10^11 bit/s 11.

   The virtual reality model is convenient in several senses,e.g. it provides a tool to dis-cuss - and demystify - the interpretations of Benjamin Libets results of the timing of sensory and cortical stimuli 12. Further the model allows the mind to move freely in time and space during associative "free-wheeling", i.e.thinking, reasoning, dreaming, etc. "
   
   RJK: Bullshit.

   J.-T.E.: "However,as for all metaphors, one has to be cautious with the interpretations, the brain is not a computer in the normal sense that perform sequential logic opera-tions according to a given algorithm. Simulation in the brain is based on massive neural feedback processes, an instant awareness pattern associates to the next and so on in an infinite chain. The neural networks of the brain do not compute weight factors.

   Actually, they do not perform algebraic computations at all. Externally excited mathe-matical operations follow learned patterns, we simply recollect that two plus two equals four or seven times eleven is seventy seven. We still know very little about the dynamic operation of the brain. "Programming" is a self-organized generic pro-cess,which would be very useful to understand.Artificial pattern recognition and neu-ral computing require time consuming optimization, the brain sorts out the essential information of a visual sensation in 300 ms compressing an information stream of 10 million bit/s to 40 bit/s.

   9

   
   3.3 Linguistic compression

   
   Verbal communication between two persons is based on extremely effective com-pression. The speaker and the listener ought to have the more cultural "fitness" the deeper the conversation penetrates a specific subject. Here the words really works as the synchronization impulses for individual virtual reality simulations. Figure 3 illustrates how a visual experience is mediated verbally by "me" to a second person, "you". The scale to the left indicates the order of magnitude of information involved at each stage. As pointed out before, the conscious thought and verbal message operate very little information. A precise interpretation requires a rich language and generally accepted semantics. The development of consciousness and especially the the extent of the awareness region is probably closely connected to the emerge of a spoken language. Words create context entireties in the subconscious, accor-dingly enhancing the ability to confine large information quantities during reasoning or developing an understanding for a complex phenomenon. Words are not only the unit blocks of communication,they also "transport" information between the subcons-cious and awareness. In conclusion we can establish that verbal communication has led to extended awareness and the emergence of meaning, i.e. informational depth.

   

   Figure 3. The stream if information at different levels of cortical activation. As an example the me-person verbally informs the you-person what he is seeing.

    

   10

   

   
   Figure 4. The "time travelling" space of the human mind.

   3.4 Self-awareness

   
   If the language made it possible to consciously handle larger amounts of information it also speeded up the processing,maybe created the pre-requisites for reasoning. At some point, either through a gradual or a transitional process, reasoning changed to a virtual reality type operation, wherein the subject suddenly takes the role of an outside observer, the self. This finally liberated the individual from confinement to real time, he saw himself as an actor in the model representation. Figure 4 shows schematically how extended awareness combined with knowledge facilitates the transference of the future horizon ever further away from the present.

   
   4. Pain, pleasure and intentionality

   
   4.1 The Turing rational actor model

   
   The extended Turing machine13 is shown in Figure 5. Here the analyser/synthesizer is assumed to correspond to the conventional Turing machine. The left figure roughly indicates the equivalence between a biological being and the model.

   The receptors do all kinds of sensing while the effectors act on the analysers command. Effectors are not only arms and legs, but hypothalamus, heart, lungs and digestion system as well. Effectors are supervised by the autonomic and the somatic nervous system, represented by the direct arrow to the receptor in the figure.

   Effectors also influence the body glands, e.g. due to exertion. The whole system is in a strong interaction with the environment. Biologically the being is living on the terms of the surrounding or more precisely, natural selection has dictated the development of "actor" complexity.

   11

   
    

   Figure 5. The Turing rational actor model. (a) Schematic representation of the main signal systems of the body. (b) Compressed model indicating interactions and feedback loops.

    

   4.2 Impact of biochemical feedback

   
   Figure 5 indicates many interactions, the controlling function of the "analyser" (brain) is governed by a multitude of feedback loops working on different time scales. Con-trolling movements by eye-following requires fast reactions. Even biochemical feed-back via the glands can be very fast, take for instance the secretion of adrenaline in case of a threat or when a conversation rises emotions.Actually one reason for inclu-ding this paragraph is the belief that emotions, pain, joy, hunger, sexual arousal etc. all are the result of a complicated interplay between the brain and the rest of the bo-dy. The secretion of hormones affects the context potentiation of the brain, thereby giving steering primarily to the subconscious and secondarily the conscious mind. It is impossible to think of a computer feeling pain or depression. These characteristics must be the result of a feedback process tending towards a singularity point, mea-ning that the feeling of pain,like other emotions,amplifies itself and inhibits awarding functions of the brain like the secretion of endorphins. In the opposite situation of joy or pleasure, the endorphins and equivalent mechanisms are enhanced.

   But these electro-biochemical actions are not enough to excite a state of partial or complete dominance on the individual. The interplay is reflected on the process of information compression in the subconscious, negative emotions seed virtual reality associations in a direction that enhances discomfort. Pleasant arousal in turn strengthen the emotional mood by awakening memories of similar experiences.

   12

   Actually all these reactions are continuously present to a certain degree. They are part of the irreversible self-sustainable process of being a living creature.

   The influence of the body's biochemical responses on context formation, primarily mediated by the limbic system, is even more important than the influence of incoming sensory infor-mation. The context is responsible for the potentiation of certain cortical centres and accor-dingly for controlling the recognition process and further for the compression of information towards consciousness. The state of the individual as a whole will have a great impact on associative directions and the virtual reality scenarios ran for predictive purposes. The "self" is most probably the product of these interactions. A superficially sustained brain, "brain in a bowl", will not provide consciousness, because it lacks biological input. In principle such functions can be simulated by an artificial "back-up" system.
    

   4.3 Intentionality

   
   In this paper the word "intentionality" should be interpreted in a broad sense, ranging from incentive motivation to long term future planning. The expression "arrow of action" under-lines the character of dynamic continuation in all living beings. Temporarily sensory inputs provide stimulation for cognitive sustentation, but this kind of "computation" would once in a while come to a stop. There exists an inbuilt hierarchy of reference frames, which, depen-ding on the current context, initiate associative thoughts or, internal virtual reality simulations, if we wish. "
   
   RJK: Bullshit. Thoughts are originally formed linguistically.
   
   http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm

   a) N. Y. Marr divorces thinking from language;

   b) N. Y. Marr considers that communication between people can be realized without language, with the help of thinking itself, which is free of the "natural matter" of lan-guage,free of the "standards of nature"; c) divorcing thinking from language and "ha- ving freed" it from the "natural matter,' of language, N.Y.Marr lands into the swamp of idealism.

   It is said that thoughts arise in the mind of man prior to their being expressed in speech, that they arise without linguistic material, without linguistic integument, in, so to say, a naked form.

   But that is absolutely wrong.

   Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material, on the basis of language terms and phrases.

   Bare thoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the "natural matter" of language, do not exist.

   "Language is the immediate reality of thought" (Marx). The reality of thought is mani-fested in language.Only idealists can speak of thinking not being connected with "the natural matter" of language, of thinking without language. "
   
   The "altenatives" for hypothetical "bare thoughts" "before they are dressesd in lin-guistic form" would be "thought-chemical" or fully non-material "Holy Spirit" in brain. Those are not scientific alternatives.

   
   J.-T.E.: " The frames can be ranked according to the Maslow scheme 14 starting with short term needs as food and shelter and continuing with safety and affiliation (social needs). Needs for knowledge (cognitive), beauty (aesthetic) and self-actualization are topping the pyramid. The initiation of internal incentives starts from the lower levels and upon satisfac-tion continues towards higher values. One dominating ingredient in the intentional interplay is the "gradient of surprise", i.e. the need to mentally move towards unexplored grounds. This is clearly reflected by the tempting force of computer science and multimedia. In the intentional process both inherited behavioural and acquired ethical constraints have an important function.

   
   5. Conclusions

   
   The complexity of the Universe is characterized by self-similarity,order and organization. This fact facilitates modelling in as well mathematical as mental form. The human brain works with models utilizing neural networks and electrochemical signalling. The brain can only elaborate phenomena that provide enough patterns for modelling. The connection between reality and brain functions is established by pattern recognition.

   13

   Consciousness is based on memory information triggered by sensory stimulation, the major part of conscious experiences being the result of a continuous associative pro-cess comparable to virtual reality simulation.Steering is partly provided by the senso-ry input, but mainly by cortical context potentiation, which depends on emotions and history factors.

   Self-awareness may be considered as a slow transitional occasion in the history of natural selection. Linguistic information compression has caused a radical expansion of attentional awareness, thus facilitating the conscious mind to operate large amounts of information represented by "sparse" concepts. Imagination has freed the individual from the instant of reality, whereby the future horizon has been extended from the next movement to the planning of the day, the week or the rest of the life. Issues presented in this paper must be considered in order to develop sophisticated artificial intelligence.

   
   References

   
   1. As cited by John A.Wheeler in Complexity,Entropy and the Physics of Information, Santa Fe Institute Series VIII, 1991, pp. 15.
   2. Damasio, A.R.,Descartes' Error, Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Grosset /Putnam Books, New York 1994.
   3. Kolmogorov, A. N., Three Approaches to the Quantitative Definition of Information, Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 1, 1965.
   4. Bennet, C., On the Nature and Origin of Complexity in Discrete, Homogenous, Locally-Interacting Systems, Foundations of Physics 16, pp. 585-592, 1986.
   5. Harth,E.,The Creative Loop, How the Brain Makes a Mind, Addison-Wesley, 1993.
   6. Cellier, F. E., Continuous System Modeling, Springer Verlag, 1991.
   7. Penrose, R. , The Emperors New Mind, Oxford University Press, 1989.
   8. Gregory, R.L.,The Oxford companion to the mind. Oxford Univ.Press,1987, pp. 94.
   9. Eriksson, J.-T. et al., Order versus disorder - philosophical implications on compu-tability and modelling of complex processes. Proc. of NOLTA 1993, pp 799 - 802
   10. Picton, T.W., et al., Neurobiology and conscious experience. Current opinion in Neurobiology 1994, 4, pp. 256 - 265.
   11. Kupfmuller K., Grundlagen der Informationstheorie und Kybernetik. Physiologie des Menschen, Band 10, Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munchen 1971, pp. 191-231.
   12. Libet, B. et al., Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity. Brain 106, 1983, pp. 623-642.
   13. Turing, A.M., Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, pp. 433-460, 1950.
   14. Maslow, A. H., Motivation and personality, Harper & Row, New York, 1970. "