Jump to content

Thescelosaurus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverting possible vandalism by Samliven to version by 84.253.196.22. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1650140) (Bot)
Undid revision 556618842 by ClueBot NG (talk)
Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Free will''' is the ability to choose from future alternatives
{{pp-move-indef}}{{italic title}}{{Automatic taxobox
| name = ''Thescelosaurus''
| fossil_range = [[Late Cretaceous]], {{fossil range|66}}
| image = Burpee - Thescelosaurus.JPG
| image_caption = Mounted specimen, [[Burpee Museum of Natural History]]
| grandparent_authority = [[Charles Hazelius Sternberg|Sternberg]], [[1937 in paleontology|1937]]
| parent_authority = Sternberg, 1937
| authority = [[Charles W. Gilmore|Gilmore]], [[1913 in paleontology|1913]]
| type_species = {{extinct}}'''''Thescelosaurus neglectus'''''
| type_species_authority = Gilmore, 1913
| subdivision_ranks = [[Species]]
| subdivision =
{{extinct}}'''''T. neglectus''''' <small>Gilmore, 1913</small><br>
{{extinct}}'''''T. garbanii''''' <small>[[William J. Morris|Morris]], 1976</small><br>
{{extinct}}'''''T. assiniboiensis''''' <small>Brown, Boyd, & Russell, [[2011 in paleontology|2011]]</small>
| synonyms =
'''''Bugenasaura''''' <small>[[Peter Galton|Galton]], 1995</small><ref name=CABetal09/>
}}
{{Technical}}
'''''Thescelosaurus''''' ({{IPAc-en|icon|ˌ|θ|ɛ|s|ɨ|l|ə|ˈ|s|ɔr|ə|s}} {{respell|THESS|il-ə|SOR|əs}}; [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] θέσκελος-/''theskelos-'' meaning "godlike", "marvelous", or "wondrous" and σαυρος/''sauros'' "[[lizard]]")<ref>{{cite book|author=Liddell & Scott|year=1980|title=Greek-English Lexicon, Abridged Edition |publisher=Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK|isbn=0-19-910207-4}}</ref> was a [[genus]] of small [[ornithopod]] [[dinosaur]] that appeared at the very end of the [[Late Cretaceous]] [[period (geology)|period]] in [[North America]]. It was a member of the last dinosaurian [[fauna]] before the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]] around 66&nbsp;million years ago. The preservation and completeness of many of its specimens indicate that it may have preferred to live near [[stream]]s.


The logic of free will has 2 main parts, the agency which does the choosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, "what chooses" is called spiritual, "what is chosen" is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, called subjectivity and objectivity.
This [[bipedalism|bipedal]] ornithopod is known from several partial skeletons and skulls that indicate it grew to between 2.5 and 4.0&nbsp;meters (8.2 to 13.1&nbsp;ft) in length on average. It had sturdy hind limbs, small wide hands, and a head with an elongate pointed snout. The [[morphology (biology)|form]] of the teeth and jaws suggest a primarily [[herbivore|herbivorous]] animal. This genus of dinosaur is regarded as a specialized [[basal (phylogenetics)|basal]] ornithopod, traditionally described as a [[hypsilophodont]], but more recently recognized as distinct from ''[[Hypsilophodon]]''. Several species have been suggested for this genus. Three currently are recognized as [[valid name (zoology)|valid]]: the [[type species]] ''T. neglectus'', as well as ''T. garbanii'' and ''T. assiniboiensis''.


Subjectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the spiritual domain by choosing the answer resulting in a opinions or beliefs.
The genus attracted media attention in 2000, when a specimen unearthed in 1993 in [[South Dakota]] was interpreted as including a [[fossil]]ized [[heart]]. There was much discussion over whether the remains were of a heart. Many scientists now doubt the identification of the object and the implications of such an identification.


Objectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the material domain by measuring it, resulting in facts. <ref>William of Ockham, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2 , quote: "we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"</ref> [[Image:William_of_Ockham.jpg|frame|William of Ockham philosophically justified both objectivity and subjectivity]]
==Description==
[[File:Thescelosaurus BW3.jpg|thumb|left|''Thescelosaurus neglectus'' restoration]]
''Thescelosaurus'' was a heavily built bipedal animal, probably herbivorous,<ref name=NSWC04>{{cite book |last=Norman |first=David B. |authorlink=David B. Norman |coauthors=Sues, Hans-Dieter; Witmer, Larry M.; and Coria, Rodolfo A. |editor=Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; and Osmólska, Halszka (eds.)|title=The Dinosauria |edition=2nd |year= 2004|publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |isbn=0-520-24209-2 |pages=393–412 |chapter=Basal Ornithopoda}}</ref> but possibly [[omnivore|omnivorous]].<ref name=TT>{{cite web | author = Triebold Paleontology, Inc. | title = Thescelosaurus | url= http://www.trieboldpaleontology.com/specimens/dinosaurs/ornithischian/thescelosaurus-neglectus-jonathan-ornithischian/ | accessdate = 2013-02-13}}</ref> It would have [[Herbivory|browsed]] in the first meter or so from the ground, feeding selectively,<ref name=NSWC04/> with food held in the mouth by [[cheek]]s while [[mastication|chewing]].<ref name=PMG74>{{cite journal |last=Galton |first=Peter M. |authorlink=Peter Galton |year=1974 |title=Notes on ''Thescelosaurus'', a conservative ornithopod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of North America, with comments on ornithopod classification |journal=Journal of Paleontology |volume=48 |issue=5 |pages=1048–1067 }}</ref> There was a prominent ridge along the length of both [[maxilla]]e (the tooth-bearing "cheek" bones),<ref name=CABetal09>{{cite journal|last=Boyd|first=Clint A.|coauthors=Brown, Caleb M.; Scheetz, Rodney D.; and Clarke, Julia A.|year=2009|title=Taxonomic revision of the basal neornithischian taxa ''Thescelosaurus'' and ''Bugenasaura''|journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology|volume=29|issue=3|pages=758–770|doi=10.1671/039.029.0328}}</ref> and a ridge on both [[dentary|dentaries]] (tooth-bearing bone of the lower jaw).<ref name=PMG99>{{cite journal |last=Galton |first=Peter M. |authorlink=Peter Galton |year=1999 |title=Cranial anatomy of the hypsilophodont dinosaur ''Bugenasaura infernalis'' (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of North America |journal=Revue Paléobiologie, Genève |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=517–534 }}</ref> The ridges<ref name=PMG99/> and position of the teeth, deeply internal to the outside surface of the skull, are interpreted as evidence for muscular cheeks.<ref name=WJM76>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=William J. |editor=Churcher, C.S. (ed.) |title=Athlon |year=1976 |publisher=Royal Ontario Museum |location=Toronto |isbn=0-88854-157-0 |pages=93–113 |chapter=Hypsilophodont dinosaurs: a new species and comments on their systematics}}</ref> Aside from the long narrow beak, the skull also had teeth in the [[premaxilla]], or upper beak (a primitive trait among ornithopods).<ref name=PMG97>{{cite journal |last=Galton |first=Peter M. |authorlink=Peter Galton |year=1997 |title=Cranial anatomy of the basal hypsilophodontid dinosaur ''Thescelosaurus neglectus'' Gilmore (Ornithischia; Ornithopoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of North America |journal=Revue Paléobiologie, Genève |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=231–258 }}</ref> Long rod-like bones called [[palpebral (bone)|palpebrals]] were present over the eyes, giving the animal heavy bony eyebrows.<ref name=PMG97/> Its teeth were of [[heterodont|two types]]: small pointed premaxillary teeth, and leaf-shaped cheek teeth.<ref name=CMS40>{{cite journal |last=Sternberg |first=Charles M. |authorlink=Charles Mortram Sternberg |year=1940 |title=''Thescelosaurus edmontonensis'', n. sp., and classification of the Hypsilophodontidae |journal=Journal of Paleontology |volume=14 |issue=5 |pages=481–494 }}</ref> Six small teeth were present in both premaxillae, with a toothless section at the tip of the beak.<ref name=CABetal09/>


Thescelosaurs had short, broad, five-fingered hands, four-toed feet with [[hoof]]-like [[phalanx bones|toe tips]], and a long tail braced by [[ossification|ossified]] [[tendon]]s from the middle to the tip, which would have reduced the flexibility of the tail.<ref name=CWG15>{{cite journal |last=Gilmore |first=Charles W. |authorlink=Charles W. Gilmore |year=1915 |title=Osteology of ''Thescelosaurus'', an orthopodus dinosaur from the Lance Formation of Wyoming |journal=Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum |volume=49 |issue=2127 |pages=591–616 |url=http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/14925/1/USNMP-49_2127_1915.pdf |format=pdf}}</ref> The rib cage was broad, giving it a wide back, and the limbs were robust.<ref name=CMS40/> The animals may have been able to move on [[quadruped|all fours]], given its fairly long arms and wide hands,<ref name=PMG74/> but this idea has not been widely discussed in the scientific literature, although it does appear in popular works.<ref name=DL90>{{cite book |last=Lambert |first=David |coauthors=and the Diagram Group |title=The Dinosaur Data Book |year=1990 |publisher=Avon Books |location=New York |isbn=0-380-75896-2 |chapter=Thescelosaurids |page=153}}</ref><ref name=LG93>{{cite book|title=The Dinosaur Society Dinosaur Encyclopedia|year=1993 |last=Lessem |first=Donald |authorlink=Don Lessem |coauthors= and Glut, Donald F. |publisher=Random House, Inc.|isbn=0-679-41770-2 |page=475}}</ref> [[Charles Mortram Sternberg|Charles M. Sternberg]] reconstructed it with the [[humerus|upper arm]] oriented almost perpendicular to the body,<ref name=CMS40/> another idea that has gone by the wayside. As noted by [[Peter Galton]], the upper arm bone of most ornithischians articulated with the shoulder by an articular surface that consisted of the entire end of the bone, instead of a distinct ball and socket as in mammals. The orientation of the shoulder's articular surface also indicates a vertical and not horizontal upper arm in dinosaurs.<ref name=PMG70>{{cite journal |last=Galton |first=Peter M. |authorlink=Peter Galton |year=1970 |title=The posture of hadrosaurian dinosaurs |journal=Journal of Paleontology |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=464–473 }}</ref> ''Thescelosaurus'' was probably slower than other hypsilophodonts, because of its heavier build and leg structure. Compared to them, it had unusual hindlimbs, because the [[femur|upper leg]] was longer than the [[tibia|shin]], the opposite of ''[[Hypsilophodon]]'' and running animals in general.<ref name=CMS40/> One specimen is known to have had a bone [[pathology]], with the [[metatarsus|long bones]] of the right foot fused at their tops, hindering swift movement.<ref name=BRE03a>{{cite book |last=Erickson |first=Bruce R. |authorlink=Bruce Erickson (paleontologist)|title=Dinosaurs of the Science Museum of Minnesota |year=2003 |publisher=The Science Museum of Minnesota |location=St. Paul, Minnesota |pages=31–32 }}</ref>
[[File:Thescelosaurus skeleton.jpg|thumb|left|Head and arms of ''Thescelosaurus'', [[Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Resource Center]]]]
Large thin flat mineralized plates have been found next to the ribs' sides.<ref name=FRSBHK00>{{cite journal |last=Fisher |first=Paul E. |coauthors=Russell, Dale A.; Stoskopf, Michael K.; Barrick, Reese E.; Hammer, Michael; and Kuzmitz, Aandrew A. |year=2000 |month=April |title=Cardiovascular evidence for an intermediate or higher metabolic rate in an ornithischian dinosaur |journal=Science |volume=288 |issue=5465 |pages=503–505 |doi=10.1126/science.288.5465.503 |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/288/5465/503.pdf?ijkey=c75f52279333bdb9fa3d0504b786c07f9e35e2f9 |accessdate=2007-03-10 |pmid=10775107 |bibcode=2000Sci...288..503F}}</ref> Their function is unknown; they may have played a role in [[respiration (physiology)|respiration]].<ref name=NCA04>{{cite journal |last=Novas |first=Fernando E. |coauthors=Cambiaso, Andrea V; and Ambrioso, Alfredo |year=2004 |title=A new basal iguanodontian (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia |journal=Ameghiniana |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=75–82 }}</ref> However, muscle scars or other indications of attachment have not been found for the plates, which argues against a respiratory function. Recent histological study of layered plates from a probable subadult indicates that they may have started as [[cartilage]] and became bone as the animal aged.<ref name=BC08>{{cite journal |last=Boyd |first=Clint A. |coauthors=and Cleland, Timothy P. |year=2008 |title=The morphology and histology of thoracic plates on neornithischian dinosaurs |journal=Abstract with Programs - Geological Society of America; Southeast Section, 57th Annual Meeting |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=2 |url=http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008SE/finalprogram/abstract_136807.htm}}</ref> Such plates are known from several other ornithopods and their [[cerapoda]]n relatives.<ref name=BG08>{{cite journal |last=Butler |first=Richard J. |coauthors=and Galton, Peter M. |year=2008 |title=The 'dermal armour' of the ornithopod dinosaur ''Hypsilophodon'' from the Wealden (Early Cretaceous: Barremian) of the Isle of Wight: a reappraisal |journal=Cretaceous Research |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=636–642 |doi=10.1016/j.cretres.2008.02.002}}</ref>
[[File:Human-thescelosaurus size comparison.png|thumb|The size of ''Thescelosaurus'' compared to a human]]
The nature of this genus' [[integument]], be it scales or something else, is currently unknown, although potential evidence exists: [[Charles W. Gilmore|Charles Gilmore]] described patches of [[carbon]]ized material near the shoulders as possible [[epidermis (skin)|epidermis]], with a "punctured" texture, but no regular pattern,<ref name=CWG15/> and William J. Morris suggested that [[armour (zoology)|armor]] was present, in the form of small [[scute]]s he interpreted as located at least along the midline of the neck of one specimen.<ref name=WJM76/> Scutes have not been found with other articulated specimens of ''Thescelosaurus'', though, and Morris's scutes could be [[crocodilia]]n in origin.<ref name=BG08/>


=== Overview of the dual categories in free will ===
Overall, the skeletal anatomy of this genus is well documented, and restorations have been published in several papers, including skeletal restorations<ref name=CABetal09/><ref name=PMG74/><ref name=CWG15/><ref name=MKBS97>{{cite book |last=Brett-Surman |first=Michael K. |editor=Farlow, James O.; and Brett-Surman, Michael K. (eds.) |title=The Complete Dinosaur |year=1997 |publisher=Indiana University Press |location=Bloomington and Indianapolis |isbn=0-253-33349-0 |pages=330–346 |chapter=Ornithopods }}</ref> and models.<ref name=CMS40/><ref name=CWG15/> The skeleton is known well enough that a detailed reconstruction of the hip and hindlimb muscles has been made.<ref name=ASR27>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1463-6395.1927.tb00653.x |last=Romer |first=Alfred S. |authorlink=Alfred Sherwood Romer |year=1927 |title=The pelvic musculature of ornithischian dinosaurs |journal=Acta Zoologica |volume=8 |pages=225–275 |issue=2–3 }}</ref> The animal's size has been estimated in the 2.5–4.0&nbsp;m range for length (8.2–13.1&nbsp;ft)<ref name=PMG74/> for various specimens, and a weight of 200–300&nbsp;[[kilogram]]s (450–660&nbsp;[[pound (mass)|pounds]]),<ref name=BRE03b>{{cite book |last=Erickson |first=Bruce R. |authorlink=Bruce Erickson (paleontologist)|title=Dinosaurs of the Science Museum of Minnesota |year=2003 |publisher=The Science Museum of Minnesota |location=St. Paul, Minnesota |page=31 }}</ref> with the large [[type specimen]] of ''T. garbanii'' estimated at 4–4.5 meters (13.1–14.8&nbsp;feet) long.<ref name=WJM76/> As discussed more fully under "[[#Discovery, history, and species|Discovery, history, and species]]", it may have been [[sexual dimorphism|sexually dimorphic]], with one [[sex]] larger than the other.<ref name=PMG74/> [[juvenile (organism)|Juvenile]] remains are known from several locations, mostly based on teeth.<ref name=KC82>{{cite journal |last=Carpenter |first=Kenneth |authorlink=Kenneth Carpenter |year=1982 |title=Baby dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous Lance and Hell Creek formations and a description of a new species of theropod |journal=Contributions to Geology |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=123–134 }}</ref><ref name=RM02>{{cite book |last=Russell |first=Dale A. |authorlink=Dale Russell |coauthors=and Manabe, Makoto |chapter=Synopsis of the Hell Creek (uppermost Cretaceous) dinosaur assemblage |editor=Hartman, Joseph H.; Johnson, Kirk R.; and Nichols, Douglas J. (eds.) |title=The Hell Creek Formation and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in the Northern Great Plains: An Integrated Continental Record of the End of the Cretaceous |year=2002 |series=''Geological Society of America Special Paper'', 361 |publisher=Geological Society of America |location=Boulder, Colorado |pages=169–176 |isbn=0-8137-2361-2 }}</ref>
[[File:Dualdomains.JPG|Left||the spiritual and the material domain]]


Love, hate, God, the human spirit (who you are as being the owner of your decisions), the soul, peace, fear are in the spiritual domain. One may also reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, provided one reaches the conclusion by choosing it. (emptiness is symbolized by the incomplete circle in the picture)
==Classification==
{{Cladogram|caption=This [[cladistics|cladogram]] is from Brown ''et al.'', (2013).<ref name=Albertadromeus>{{Cite doi|10.1080/02724634.2013.746229}}</ref> Additional ornithopods beyond ''Tenontosaurus'' are omitted. Dinosaurs described as [[hypsilophodont]]s are found from ''Agilisaurus'' or ''Hexinlusaurus'' to ''Hypsilophodon'' or ''Gasparinisaura''.
|clades={{clade| style=font-size:85%;line-height:85%
|label1=<span style="color:white;">unnamed</span>
|1={{clade
|1=''[[Heterodontosaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Scutellosaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Lesothosaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Agilisaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Hexinlusaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Othnielosaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|label1=[[Thescelosauridae]]
|1={{clade
|label1=[[Orodrominae]]
|1={{clade
|1={{clade
|1=TMP 2008.045.0002
|2=''[[Oryctodromeus]]''}}
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Albertadromeus]]''
|2=''[[Orodromeus]]''
|3=''[[Zephyrosaurus]]'' }} }}
|label2=[[Thescelosaurinae]]
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Parksosaurus]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Changchunsaurus]]''
|2=''[[Haya (dinosaur)|Haya]]''
|3=''[[Jeholosaurus]]''
|4={{clade
|1='''''Thescelosaurus assiniboiensis'''''
|2='''''Thescelosaurus neglectus''''' }} }} }} }}
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Hypsilophodon]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Gasparinisaura]]''
|2={{clade
|1=''[[Tenontosaurus]]''
|2=Other [[ornithopoda|ornithopods]] }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
}}


Decisions connect the spiritual domain directly to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.
''Thescelosaurus'' has generally been allied to ''[[Hypsilophodon]]'' and other small ornithopods as a [[hypsilophodont]]id, although recognized as being distinct among them for its robust build, unusual hindlimbs, and, more recently, its unusually long skull.<ref name=NSWC04/><ref name=PMG74/><ref name=CMS40/><ref name=SN90>{{cite book |last=Sues |first=Hans-Dieter |coauthors=and Norman, David B. |editor= Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; and Osmólska, Halszka (eds.)|title=The Dinosauria |edition=1st |year=1990 |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |isbn=0-520-06727-4 |pages=498–509 |chapter=Hypsilophodontidae, ''Tenontosaurus'', Dryosauridae}}</ref> [[Peter Galton]] in 1974 presented one twist to the classic arrangement, suggesting that because of its hindlimb structure and heavy build (not [[cursorial]], or built for running, by his definition), it should be included in the [[Iguanodont]]idae. This has not been followed, with Morris arguing strongly against Galton's classification scheme.<ref name=WJM76/> At any rate, Galton's Iguanodontidae was [[polyphyly|polyphyletic]] and not a natural group, and so would not be recognized under modern [[cladistic]] usage.


The body (and brain) is chosen over, you can move your arms this way or that alternatively, but also by eating one thing or the other your body becomes one or the other. The body then consists of chosen alternatives.
Although Hypsilophodontidae was interpreted as a natural group in the early 1990s,<ref name=SN90/><ref name=WH92>{{cite journal |last=Weishampel |first=David B. |authorlink=David B. Weishampel |coauthors=and Heinrich, Ronald E. |year=1992 |title=Systematics of Hypsilophodontidae and Basal Iguanodontia (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) |journal=Historical Biology |volume=6 |pages=159–184 |url=http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/ghbi_06_01_01.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2007-03-10 |doi=10.1080/10292389209380426 |issue=3 }}</ref> this hypothesis has fallen out of favor and Hypsilophodontidae has been found to be an unnatural family composed of a variety of animals more or less closely related to Iguanodontia ([[paraphyly]]), with various small [[clade]]s of closely related taxa.<ref name=CABetal09/><ref name=Hanetal12>{{cite journal |last=Han |first=Feng-Lu |coauthors=Paul M. Barrett, Richard J. Butler, and Xing Xu |year=2012 |title=Postcranial anatomy of ''Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis'' (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2012.694385
|journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology |volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=1370–1395 |doi=10.1080/02724634.2012.694385 }}</ref><ref name=NSWC04/><ref name=WJCN03/><ref name=VMK07>{{cite journal |last=Varricchio |first=David J. |coauthors=Martin, Anthony J.; and Katsura, Yoshihiro |year=2007 |title=First trace and body fossil evidence of a burrowing, denning dinosaur |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |pmid=17374596 |volume=274 |issue=1616 |pmc=2176205 |pages=1361–1368 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2006.0443 |url=http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/uj1k12wh01587821/fulltext.pdf |format=PDF|accessdate=2007-03-22 }}</ref> "Hypsilophodontidae" and "hypsilophodont" are better understood as informal terms for an [[evolutionary grade]], not a true clade. ''Thescelosaurus'' has been regarded as both very basal<ref name=WH92/> and very [[derived]]<ref name=NSWC04/> among the hypsilophodonts. One issue that has potentially interfered with classifying ''Thescelosaurus'' is that not all of the remains assigned to ''T. neglectus'' necessarily belong to it.<ref name=BUN08>{{cite journal |last=Butler |first=Richard J. |coauthors=Upchurch, Paul; and [[David B. Norman|Norman, David B.]] |title=The phylogeny of the ornithischian dinosaurs|journal=Journal of Systematic Palaeontology |volume=6 |issue=1 |year=2008 |pages=1–40 |doi=10.1017/S1477201907002271}}</ref> Clint Boyd and colleagues found that while the clade ''Thescelosaurus'' included the genus ''Bugenasaura'' and the species that had been assigned to that genus, there were at least two and possibly three species within ''Thescelosaurus'', and several specimens previously assigned to ''T. neglectus'' could not yet be assigned to a species within the genus.<ref name=CABetal09/> It appears to be closely related to ''[[Parksosaurus]]''.<ref name=CABetal09/><ref name=CMBetal2011>{{cite journal |authors=Brown; Caleb M.; Boyd, Clint A.; and Russell, Anthony P. |year=2011 |title=A new basal ornithopod dinosaur (Frenchman Formation, Saskatchewan, Canada), and implications for late Maastrichtian ornithischian diversity in North America |url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00735.x/abstract |journal=Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society |volume=163 |issue=4 |pages=1157–1198 |doi=10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00735.x }}</ref><ref name=CMBetal13>{{cite journal |last=Brown |first=Caleb Marshall |coauthors=Evans, David C.; Ryan, Michael J.; and Russell, Anthony P. |year=2013 |title=New data on the diversity and abundance of small-bodied ornithopods (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) from the Belly River Group (Campanian) of
Alberta |journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=495–520 |doi=10.1080/02724634.2013.746229}}</ref><ref name=NSWC04/><ref name=WJCN03>{{cite journal |last=Weishampel |first= David B. |authorlink=David B. Weishampel |coauthors=Jianu, Coralia-Maria; Csiki, Z.; and Norman, David B. |year=2003 |title=Osteology and phylogeny of ''Zalmoxes'' (n.g.), an unusual euornithopod dinosaur from the latest Cretaceous of Romania |journal=Journal of Systematic Palaeontology |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=1–56 |doi=10.1017/S1477201903001032 }}</ref>


Clearly the alphabet, words, are also a set of 26 alternatives, from which is chosen. Consider the relationship between the word love, and the genuine love as it is in the spritual domain. One chooses the words “I love you”, and then one may opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was loving, but still alternatively one may also opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was hateful.
The dissolution of Hypsilophodontidae has been followed by the recognition of the distinct family Thescelosauridae. This area of the dinosaur family tree has historically been complicated by a lack of research, but papers by Clint Boyd and colleagues<ref name=CABetal09/> and Caleb Brown and colleagues<ref name=CMBetal2011/><ref name=CMBetal13/> have specifically addressed these dinosaurs. Boyd ''et al.'' (2009) and Brown ''et al.'' (2011) found North American "hypsilophodonts" of Cretaceous age to sort into two related clusters, one consisting of ''[[Orodromeus]]'', ''[[Oryctodromeus]]'', and ''[[Zephyrosaurus]]'', and the other consisting of ''Parksosaurus'' and ''Thescelosaurus''.<ref name=CABetal09/><ref name=CMBetal2011/> Brown ''et al.'' (2013) recovered similar results, with the addition of the new genus ''[[Albertadromeus]]'' to the ''Orodromeus'' clade and several long-snouted Asian forms (previously described under [[Jeholosauridae]])<ref name=Hanetal12/> to the ''Thescelosaurus'' clade. They also formally defined Thescelosauridae (''Thescelosaurus neglectus'', ''Orodromeus makelai'', their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants) and the smaller clades Orodrominae and Thescelosaurinae.<ref name=CMBetal13/>


There are 2 pictures of superman, one wearing a red and blue dress, the other wearing a yellow and green dress. The difference in coloring is meant to illustrate that the fantasy figure superman also consists of chosen alternatives, and therefore fantasy in essence also belongs to the material domain. The question of what emotions the fantasyfigure superman has is a subjective issue, resulting in an opinion about the spirit of the fantasy figure superman. Many times people argue that God also belongs in fantasy figure category, that God is chosen, because there are many different gods witnessed throughout the world. However in general most all religions have made it clear they use the name God addressing what chooses, and not addressing what is chosen. Religions generally emphasize faith and not measurement, which clearly indicates the gods are considered by religions to be in the spiritual domain doing the choosing.
==Discovery, history, and species==
[[File:Thescelosaurus neglectus.jpg|left|thumb|''T. neglectus'' holotype at the Smithsonian Museum, with skull and neck restored after ''[[Camptosaurus]]'']]
The [[holotype|type specimen]] of ''Thescelosaurus'' ([[National Museum of Natural History|USNM]]&nbsp;7757) was discovered in 1891 by [[paleontology|paleontologists]] [[John Bell Hatcher]] and William H. Utterback, from [[stratum|beds]] of the [[Maastrichtian|late Maastrichtian]]-age [[Upper Cretaceous]] [[Lance Formation]] of [[Niobrara County, Wyoming|Niobrara County]] (at the time part of [[Converse County, Wyoming|Converse County]]), [[Wyoming]], [[United States|USA]]. The skeleton, however, remained in its shipping crates for years until [[Charles W. Gilmore]] of the [[Smithsonian Institution]]' [[National Museum of Natural History]] had it prepared and described it in a short paper in 1913, naming it ''T. neglectus'' (''neglectus'': "neglected"). At the time, he thought it was related to ''[[Camptosaurus]]''.<ref name=CWG13>{{cite journal |last=Gilmore |first=Charles W. |authorlink=Charles W. Gilmore |year=1913 |month=May |title=A new dinosaur from the Lance Formation of Wyoming |journal=Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections |volume=61 |issue=5 |pages=1–5 |url=http://www.archive.org/details/cbarchive_121329_anewdinosaurfromthelanceformat1862 }}</ref> He provided a detailed [[monograph]] in 1915, describing the well-preserved skeleton.<ref name=CWG15/> The type specimen was found largely in natural articulation and was missing only the head and neck, which were lost due to [[erosion]].<ref name=CWG15/> The name comes from the surprise Gilmore felt at finding such a good specimen that had been unattended to for so long. He considered it to be a light, agile creature, and assigned it to the Hypsilophodontidae, a family of small [[bipedalism|bipedal]] dinosaurs.<ref name=CWG15/>
[[File:Gilmorethesc.jpg|thumb|Charles Gilmore's 1915 reconstruction of the ''T. neglectus'' type specimen]]
Other remains of similar animals were found throughout the late 19th century and 20th century. Another well-preserved skeleton from the slightly older [[Horseshoe Canyon Formation]], in [[Alberta]], [[Canada]], was named ''T. warreni'' by [[William Parks (paleontologist)|William Parks]] in 1926.<ref name=WAP26>{{cite journal |last=Parks |first=William A |authorlink=William Parks (paleontologist) |year=1926 |title=''Thescelosaurus warreni'', a new species of orthopodous dinosaur from the Edmonton Formation of Alberta |journal=University of Toronto Studies (Geological Series) |volume=21 |pages=1–42 }}</ref> This skeleton had notable differences from ''T. neglectus'', and so [[Charles Mortram Sternberg|Charles M. Sternberg]] placed it in a new genus, ''Parksosaurus'', in 1937.<ref name=CMS37>{{cite journal |last=Sternberg |first=Charles M. |authorlink=Charles Mortram Sternberg |year=1937 |title=Classification of ''Thescelosaurus'', with a description of a new species |journal=Geological Society of America Proceedings for 1936 |pages=365 }}</ref> Sternberg also named an additional species, ''T. edmontonensis'', based on another articulated skeleton, this time including a partial skull ([[Canadian Museum of Nature|NMC]]&nbsp;8537), and drew attention to the genus' heavy build and thick bones. Due to these differences from the regular light hypsilophodont build, he suggested that the genus warranted its own [[Scientific classification|subfamily]], Thescelosaurinae.<ref name=CMS40/> ''T. edmontonensis'' has, since Peter Galton's 1974 review, generally been considered a more robust individual (possibly the [[sexual dimorphism|opposite sex]] of the type individual)<ref name=PMG74/> of ''T. neglectus''.<ref name=NSWC04/><ref name=SN90/> However, Boyd and colleagues found that they could not assign it to either of their valid species of ''Thescelosaurus'' and regarded the specimen as of [[incertae sedis|uncertain placement]] within the genus.<ref name=CABetal09/> The other point of contention regarding ''T. edmontonensis'' is its ankle, which Galton claimed was damaged and misinterpreted, but which was regarded by William J. Morris (1976) as truly different from ''T. neglectus''.<ref name=WJM76/>


[[File:Thescelosaurus neglectus, CMN.jpg|thumb|left|Cast of [[Canadian Museum of Nature|NMC]]&nbsp;8537, type specimen of ''T. edmontonensis'' (''T.'' sp. per Boyd ''et al''., [2009])]]
In his paper, Morris described a specimen ([[South Dakota School of Mines and Technology|SDSM]]&nbsp;7210) consisting of a partial skull with heavy ridges on the lower jaw and cheek, two partial [[vertebra]]e, and two [[phalanx bones|finger bones]] as an unidentified species of ''Thescelosaurus'', from the late Maastrichtian-age [[Hell Creek Formation]] of [[Harding County, South Dakota|Harding County]], [[South Dakota]], USA. He drew attention to its premaxillary teeth and deeply inset toothline which he interpreted as supporting the presence of muscular cheeks. Morris also pointed out the outwardly flaring premaxilla (which would have given it a wide beak) and large palpebrals.<ref name=WJM76/> This skull was recognized as an unnamed hypsilophodont for many years,<ref name=SN90/> until Galton made it the type specimen of new genus and species ''Bugenasaura infernalis'' ("large-cheeked lizard belonging to the lower regions", ''infernalis'' being a reference to the Hell Creek Formation).<ref name=PMG95>{{cite journal |last=Galton |first=Peter M. |authorlink=Peter Galton |year=1995 |title=The species of the basal hypsilophodontid dinosaur ''Thescelosaurus'' Gilmore (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from the Late Cretaceous of North America |journal=Neues Jahrbuch fèur Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen |volume=198 |issue=3 |pages=297–311 }}</ref> Morris also named a new possible species of ''Thescelosaurus'' for specimen [[Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County|LACM]]&nbsp;33542: ?''T. garbanii'' (with a question mark because he was uncertain that it belonged to the genus). LACM&nbsp;33542 comprised a large partial hindlimb ("a third larger than described specimens of ''T. neglectus'' and ''[[Parksosaurus]]'' or nearly twice as large as ''[[Hypsilophodon]]''") including a foot, [[tarsus (skeleton)|tarsus]], shin bones, and partial thigh bone, along with five cervical (neck) and eleven dorsal (back) vertebrae, from the Hell Creek Formation of [[Garfield County, Montana|Garfield County]], [[Montana]], USA. The specimen was discovered by amateur [[paleontology|paleontologist]] [[Harley Garbani]], hence the name. ''T. garbanii'' would have been about 4.5&nbsp;meters (15&nbsp;feet) long, greater than average specimens of ''T. neglectus''. Aside from the size, Morris drew attention to the way the ankle was constructed, which he considered to be unique except in comparison with ''Thescelosaurus edmontonensis'', which he regarded as a separate species. Because Morris believed that the ankles of ''T. garbanii'' compared favorably to those of ''T. edmontonensis'', he tentatively assigned it to ''Thescelosaurus''.<ref name=WJM76/> However, the scientific literature has favored Galton's view that ''T. edmontonensis'' was not different from ''T. neglectus'' (see above). In the same paper that he described ''Bugenasaura'', Galton demonstrated that the features Morris had thought connected ''T. garbanii'' and ''T. edmontonensis'' were the result of damage to the latter's ankle, so ''T. garbanii'' could also be considered distinct from ''Thescelosaurus''. To better accommodate this species, Galton suggested that it belonged to his new genus ''Bugenasaura'' as ''B. garbanii'', although he also noted that it could be belong to the similarly sized [[Pachycephalosauria|pachycephalosaurid]]'' [[Stygimoloch]]'', or be part of a third, unknown dinosaur.<ref name=PMG95/>


{| class="wikitable"
Clint Boyd and colleagues published a reassessment of ''Thescelosaurus'', ''Bugenasaura'', and ''Parksosaurus'' in 2009, using new cranial material as a starting point. They found that ''Parksosaurus'' was indeed distinct from ''Thescelosaurus'', and that the skull of ''Bugenasaura infernalis'' was essentially the same as a skull found with a postcranial skeleton that matched ''Thescelosaurus''. Because ''B infernalis'' could not be differentiated from ''Thescelosaurus'', they regarded the genus as a synonym of ''Thescelosaurus'', the species as [[nomen dubium|dubious]], and SDSM&nbsp;7210 as an example of ''T.'' sp. They found that LACM&nbsp;33542, although fragmentary, was a specimen of ''Thescelosaurus'', and agreed with Morris that the ankle structure was distinct, returning it to ''T. garbanii''. Finally, they noted that another specimen, [[Royal Saskatchewan Museum|RSM]]&nbsp;P.1225.1, differed from ''T. neglectus'' in some anatomical details, and may represent a new species. Thus, ''Thescelosaurus'' per Boyd et al. (2009) is represented by at least two, and possibly three valid species: type species ''T. neglectus'', ''T. garbanii'', and a possible unnamed species.<ref name=CABetal09/> In December [[2011 in paleontology|2011]], RSM&nbsp;P.1225.1 was assigned to its own species, ''Thescelosaurus assiniboiensis''. It was named by Caleb M. Brown, Clint A. Boyd and Anthony P. Russell and is known only from its holotype, a small, articulated and almost complete skeleton from the [[Frenchman Formation]] (late Maastrichtian stage) of [[Saskatchewan]].<ref name=CMBetal2011/>
|-
! what chooses (agency)!! what is chosen
|-
| subjectively identified || objectively measured
|-
| spiritual domain || material domain
|-
| opinion (creates information) || fact (rewrites information)
|-
| soul || body
|-
| God,love, hate, self, happiness etc. || solids, gasses, fluids, (fermions), etc. fantasy figures, mathematics
|-
| creator || creation
|}


Decisions connect the spiritual domain to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.
==Paleoecology==


===Temporal and geographic range===
===Objectivity and subjectivity===
[[File:Thescelosaurus BW.jpg|thumb|''T. neglectus'' reconstruction]]
True ''Thescelosaurus'' remains are known definitely only from late [[Maastrichtian]]-age rocks, from Alberta ([[Scollard Formation]]) and Saskatchewan ([[Frenchman Formation]]), Canada, and Wyoming ([[Lance Formation]]), South Dakota ([[Hell Creek Formation]]), Montana (Hell Creek), and [[Colorado]] ([[Laramie Formation]]), USA.<ref name=CABetal09/><ref name=NSWC04/> With the exception of birds, it was one of the last genera of dinosaurs, its remains being found as close as 3&nbsp;meters to the boundary clay containing the [[iridium]] layer that closes the Cretaceous.<ref name=KB86>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/02724634.1986.10011619 |last=Carpenter |first=Kenneth |authorlink=Kenneth Carpenter |coauthors=Breithaupt, Brent H. |year=1986 |title=Latest Cretaceous occurrences of nodosaurid ankylosaurs (Dinosauria, Ornithischia) in Western North America and the gradual extinction of the dinosaurs |journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=251–257 }}</ref> There are reports of teeth from older, [[Campanian]]-age rocks, particularly from the [[Dinosaur Park Formation]] of Alberta,<ref name=AS72>{{cite journal |last=Sahni |first=Ashok |year=1972 |title=The vertebrate fauna of the Judith River Formation, Montana |journal=Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History |volume=147 |pages=321–412 |id=http://hdl.handle.net/2246/1099 |accessdate=2007-03-10 |url=http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/1099/1/B147a06.pdf |format=free PDF, may not load }}</ref> but these specimens are not from ''Thescelosaurus'' and are much more likely those of ''[[Orodromeus]]''.<ref name=PMG95/> More specimens are known than have been officially described for this genus, such as the Triebold specimen,<ref name=TT/> which has been the source of several skeletal [[casting|casts]] for museums.


The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then the information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape.
When Galton revisited ''Thescelosaurus'' and ''Bugenasaura'' in 1999, he described the dentary tooth [[University of California Museum of Paleontology|UCMP]]&nbsp;46911 from the [[Upper Jurassic]] of [[Weymouth, Dorset|Weymouth]], [[England]] as cf. ''Bugensaura''.<ref name=PMG99/> If it is indeed a tooth from a thescelosaur-like animal, this would significantly extend the [[stratigraphy|stratigraphic]] range of the group.


This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.
===Habitat===
Conflicting reports have been made as to its preferred [[habitat (ecology)|habitat]]; two papers suggest it preferred [[river|channels]] to [[floodplain]]s,<ref name=PSJNH02>Pearson, Dean A.; Schaefer, Terry; Johnson, Kirk R.; Nichols, Douglas J.; and Hunter, John P. (2002). "Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Hell Creek Formation in southwestern North Dakota and northwestern South Dakota". ''The Hell Creek Formation and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in the Northern Great Plains: An Integrated Continental Record of the End of the Cretaceous.'' 145–167.</ref><ref name=TLNL11>{{cite journal |last=Lyson |first=Tyler R. |coauthors=and Longrich, Nicholas R. |year=2011 |title=Spatial niche partitioning in dinosaurs from the latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of North America |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B |pmid=20943689 |volume=278 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2010.1444 |issue=1709 |pages=1158–1164 |pmc=3049066}}</ref> but another suggests it preferred the opposite.<ref name=KY02>{{cite journal |last=Carpenter |first=Kenneth |authorlink=Kenneth Carpenter |coauthors=and Young, D. Bruce |title=Late Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Denver Basin, Colorado |journal=Rocky Mountain Geology |year=2002 |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=237–254 }}</ref> The possible preference for channels is based on the relative abundance of thescelosaur fossils in [[sandstone]]s, representing channel environments, in comparison to [[mudstone]]s, representing floodplain environments.<ref name=TLNL11/> No [[bone bed|bonebeds]] or accumulations of multiple individuals have yet been reported. [[Dale Russell]], in a popular work, noted that ''Thescelosaurus'' was the most common small herbivore in the [[Hell Creek Formation]] of the [[Fort Peck, Montana|Fort Peck]] area. He described the environment of the time as a flat floodplain, with a relatively dry [[subtropics|subtropical]] climate that supported a variety of plants ranging from [[flowering plant|angiosperm]] trees, to [[Taxodium|bald cypress]], to [[fern]]s and [[ginkgo]]s. Although most dinosaur skeletons from this area are incomplete, possibly due to the low preservation potential of forests, ''Thescelosaurus'' skeletons are much more complete, suggesting that this genus frequented stream channels. Thus when a ''Thescelosaurus'' died, it may have been in or near a river, making it easier to bury and preserve for later fossilization. Russell tentatively compared it to the [[capybara]]s and [[tapir]]s.<ref name=DAR89>{{cite book |last=Russell |first=Dale A. |authorlink=Dale Russell |title=An Odyssey in Time: Dinosaurs of North America |year=1989 |publisher=NorthWord Press, Inc. |location=Minocqua, Wisconsin |isbn=1-55971-038-1 |pages=175–176 }}</ref> Other dinosaurs that shared its time and place include the [[Ceratopsidae|ceratopsids]] ''[[Triceratops]]'' and ''[[Torosaurus]]'', hadrosaurid ''[[Edmontosaurus]]'', [[Ankylosauridae|ankylosaurid]] ''[[Ankylosaurus]]'', [[pachycephalosauria]]n ''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]'', and the [[Theropoda|theropods]] ''[[Ornithomimus]]'', ''[[Troodon]]'', and ''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''.<ref name=WETAL04>Weishampel, David B.; Barrett, Paul M.; Coria, Rodolfo A.; Le Loeuff, Jean; Xu Xing; Zhao Xijin; Sahni, Ashok; Gomani, Elizabeth, M.P.; and Noto, Christopher R. (2004). "Dinosaur Distribution". ''The Dinosauria'' (2nd). 517–606.</ref><ref name=HCFF>{{cite web | author = Bigelow, Phillip | title = Cretaceous "Hell Creek Faunal Facies"; Late Maastrichtian | url= http://www.scn.org/~bh162/hellcreek2.html | accessdate = 2007-01-26 }}</ref> ''Thescelosaurus'' was also abundant in the Lance Formation. Toe bones from this genus are the most common finds after fossils of ''Triceratops'' and ''Edmontosaurus'', and it may have been the most common dinosaur there in life, if the Lance Formation had a preservational bias against small animals.<ref name=KD94>{{cite book |last=Derstler |first=Kraig |year=1994 |editor=Nelson, Gerald E. (ed.) |title=The Dinosaurs of Wyoming |series=Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, 44th Annual Field Conference |chapter=Dinosaurs of the Lance Formation in eastern Wyoming |publisher=Wyoming Geological Association |pages=127–146}}</ref>


In the case of the videocamera the information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on the videotape, in the case of the person the information was rewritten as electro-chemistry in the brain.
==Paleobiology==


Where objectivity works by force, subjectivity works by freedom. The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the choosing is thus very different from measurement. If we want to identify the agency of any decision, then we must choose what the agency consists of.
==="Heart of stone"===
[[File:Willo.jpg|thumb|"Willo" specimen, with the possible heart left of the [[shoulder blade]]]]
In 2000, a skeleton of this genus informally known as "Willo", now on display at the [[North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences]], was described as including the remnants of a four-chambered heart and an [[aorta]]. It had been originally unearthed in 1993 in northwestern South Dakota. The authors had found the internal detail through [[computed tomography]] (CT) imagery. They suggested that the heart had been [[saponification|saponified]] (turned to [[adipocere|grave wax]]) under [[wikt:anaerobic|airless]] burial conditions, and then changed to [[goethite]], an [[iron|iron mineral]], by replacement of the original material. The authors interpreted the structure of the heart as indicating an elevated [[metabolism|metabolic rate]] for ''Thescelosaurus'', not [[reptile|reptilian]] [[Poikilotherm|cold-bloodedness]].<ref name=FRSBHK00/>


For example: if X can turn out A or B in the moment, and the decision turns out B, then the question "What made the decision turn out B instead of A?" must be answered with a new decision between alternatives like:
Their conclusions have been disputed; soon after the initial description, other researchers published a paper where they asserted that the heart is really a [[concretion]]. As they noted, the anatomy given for the object is incorrect (for example, the "aorta" narrows coming into the "heart" and lacks [[artery|arteries]] coming from it), it partially engulfs one of the ribs and has an internal structure of concentric layers in some places, and another concretion is preserved behind the right leg.<ref name=RMS01>{{cite journal |last=Rowe |first=Timothy |coauthors=McBride, Earle F.; and Sereno, Paul C. |year=2001 |month=February |title=Technical comment: dinosaur with a heart of stone |journal=Science |volume=291 |issue=5505 |pages=783a |doi=10.1126/science.291.5505.783a |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/783a |accessdate=2007-03-10 |pmid=11157158 }}</ref> The original authors defended their position; they agreed that it was a type of concretion, but one that had formed around and partially preserved the more muscular portions of the heart and aorta.<ref name=RFBS01>{{cite journal |last=Russell |first=Dale A. |authorlink=Dale Russell |coauthors=Fisher, Paul E.; Barrick, Reese E.; and Stoskopf, Michael K. |year=2001 |month=February |title=Reply: dinosaur with a heart of stone |journal=Science |volume=291 |issue=5505 |pages=783a |doi=10.1126/science.291.5505.783a |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/783a |accessdate=2007-03-10 |pmid=11157158 }}</ref>


1 - it was hateful that X chose B instead of A
A study published in 2011 applied multiple lines of inquiry to the question of the object's identity, including more advanced CT scanning, [[histology]], [[X-ray scattering techniques|X-ray diffraction]], [[X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy]], and [[scanning electron]] microscopy. From these methods, the authors found the following: the object's internal structure does not include chambers but is made up of three unconnected areas of lower density material, and is not comparable to the structure of an [[ostrich]]'s heart; the "walls" are composed of [[sedimentary]] minerals not known to be produced in biological systems, such as goethite, [[feldspar]] minerals, [[quartz]], and [[gypsum]], as well as some plant fragments; [[carbon]], [[nitrogen]], and [[phosphorus]], [[chemical element]]s important to life, were lacking in their samples; and cardiac cellular structures were absent. There was one possible patch with animal cellular structures. The authors found their data supported identification as a concretion of sand from the burial environment, not the heart, with the possibility that isolated areas of tissues were preserved.<ref name=TCetal11>{{cite journal |last=Cleland |first=Timothy P. |coauthors=Stoskopf, Michael K.; and Schweitzer, Mary H. |title=Histological, chemical, and morphological reexamination of the "heart" of a small Late Cretaceous ''Thescelosaurus'' |journal=Naturwissenschaften |year=2011 |volume=98 |doi=10.1007/s00114-010-0760-1 |issue=3 |pages=203–211 |pmid=21279321|bibcode = 2011NW.....98..203C }}</ref>


2 - it was loving that X chose B instead of A
The question of how this find reflects metabolic rate and dinosaur internal anatomy is moot, though, regardless of the object's identity.<ref name=TCetal11/> Both modern [[crocodilia]]ns and [[bird]]s, the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, have four-chambered hearts (albeit modified in crocodilians), so dinosaurs probably had them as well; the structure is not necessarily tied to metabolic rate.<ref name=CH04>Chinsamy, Anusuya; and Hillenius, Willem J. (2004). "Physiology of nonavian dinosaurs". ''The Dinosauria'', 2nd. 643–659.</ref>

If for example alternative 1 is chosen, then that results in the opinion that it was hate which made X turn out B instead of A.

Because the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing, it means that for every question about what is in the spiritual domain there are at least 2 logically correct answers available. This doesn't mean that every available answer is morally upright, or that any available answer is morally upright.

== Logical fallacy of scientism ==
[[File:Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) 3781567513.jpg|right|thumb|The "mad evil scientist" is a staple character in Hollywood productions, like the portrayal by Jim Parsons of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory TV-show]]
Refers to an argument common among scientists, which argument is to reject the existence of subjectively identified things, because subjectively identified things cannot be objectively measured.

The argument competes objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of all emotions, and pseudoscientific knowledge of good and evil.

In scientism the definition of choosing is redefind to mean "calculating an optimum" or "sorting out the best result". Instead of the focus being on the spirit in which a decision is made, the focus is on the "best" result of a decision.

The acceptance of scientism leads to the "mad evil scientist pathology", which is often caricatured in Hollywood productions involving scientists as characters.

==Biblical interpretation==

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world explains the importance of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] as real historical persons, made the first human choice; the choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and their own will as influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their [[sensory system]], which is analyzed by [[logic]] within the [[mind]], which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their [[sin]]. The [[original sin]] against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.<ref>[http://normangeisler.net/articles/theology/2010-EpigeneticsSolvesTheologicalProblems.htm Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained] By Norman L. Geisler, 2010</ref> By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

{{quote|1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=1-6}}

==Scientific evidence==

The problem in providing incontrovertible hard evidence for free will is to empirically establish the existence of alternatives '''not''' chosen. One can see the result chosen, but one cannot know the result was in fact chosen if one cannot establish the reality of the unchosen alternative also. In 2006 a team of researchers at the University of Illinois managed to search a database without running the search algorithm, instead exploiting the information on the alternative state that the algorithm '''could have''' run to infer the search result. <ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/extref/nature04523-s1.pdf </ref> This experiment proved that alternatives are indeed real, however in this experiment it is unclear whether the alternatives are in the future as is stated in common knowledge, or in the present.

Professor Daniel Dubois wrote a paper distinghuishing "strong anticipation" from "weak anticipation". Essentially the term "weak anticipation" refers to calculations of what the result will be, or sorting out the best result. The term "strong anticipation" refers to the actual future of alternatives that an object stands in anticipative relation to and decides. <ref>http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-45002-3_7?LI=true </ref>

==Politics and Ideology==
[[File:Charles Darwin 01.jpg|right|thumb|Charles Darwin wrote that love can be objectively measured]]
[[File:Cutout_expression_of_emotion_in_man_and_animals.JPG|right|thumb|Photographic evidence used by Darwin for his theory on equating emotions with physical manifestations]]
[[File:Ernst_Haeckel.jpg|right|thumb|Ernst Haeckel wrote that Jesus was loving, as a matter of pseudoscientific fact]]
[[File:CroppedStalin1943.jpg|right|thumb|Josef Stalin did not know what making a decision meant]]
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-811-1881-31, Adolf Hitler bei Rede.jpg‎|right|thumb|Adolf Hitler used nazi ideology to surpress his free will]]

Theories about free will in which the agency of decisions is treated as a matter of subjective opinion and faith are strongly related to ideological doctrines where democracy is central. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role, like Nazism, Communism, Atheism and Liberalism.

Social darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present. Starting from Darwin's theory of natural selection evolutionists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom (alternatives and decision), replacing it with knowledge in terms of force (cause and effect). Theories about people deciding in freedom were replaced with theories about people being forced by genes and environment. Agents of the human spirit, such as love and hate, were treated as a mattter of fact, instead of as a matter of opinion.

Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The expression of emotions in man and animals."<ref> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1142&viewtype=text </ref>, in which he explained all emotions in terms of a darwinian struggle for survival, and advanced a pseudoscience of measuring emotions using facial measurements.

In the early part of the 20th century the influential darwinist Ernst Haeckel wrote about the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character.<ref>http://www.pantheism.net/paul/haekrace.htm Jesus' noble personality was not semitic, but "more characteristic of the higher Aryan race"</ref>Haeckel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social darwinism is considered the main ideological input in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-A-New-History/dp/0826409067 most lethal aspect]. Because of the influence of social darwinism on Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin they largely did not even know what it meant to make a decision, which willful ignorance effectively sabotaged their conscience.

China is currentely drifting towards social darwinism. <ref>{{cite web|last=Dikötter|first=Frank|title=Throw-Away Babies
|url=http://www.frankdikotter.com/start-reading/throw-away-babies.html|publisher=Times Literary Supplement,|quote=Whether the regulation of sexuality has replaced ideological control as the main tool of repression in the People's Republic is an important question which is open to debate. It is beyond question, however, that the signs of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government guided by biological imperatives have been accumulating in China for some time, and anybody with a serious interest in that country and its people should consider the implications of that drift carefully.}}</ref> <ref>http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/social-darwinism-nationalism-and-humiliation-in-modern-china/</ref> <ref>http://edge.org/response-detail/23838 </ref> <ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60930-0/fulltext</ref> The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of social darwinism, where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived in a context of natural selection theory. There is a new onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom, replacing it with knowledge in terms of force. <ref>http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm</ref> Specially pseudoscientific neurological findings equating love with brainprocesses are offered as proof that free will is not real. However, the MRI brain imaging equipment which these neuroscientists use to disprove free will, was redesigned by Walter Schempp using a theory in which freedom is held to be real. The redesigned MRI made vast improvements in imagequality over it's predecessor.<ref>http://www.bcs.org/category/16212</ref>

==Psychology==

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness. <ref>http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260</ref>

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation <ref> http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract</ref>

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.<ref>http://spp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/43.abstract</ref>

==Biological function of free will==

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also provides predators with surprise in attack, and prey with unpredictability in escape.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. <ref>{{cite web|last=Taborsky|first=Edwina|title=Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak
anticipation|url=http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=180133786&url=0d3490b8c6d0e279f0b2fef473f4a08a |publisher=Signs vol. 2: pp. 146-187, 2008 ISSN: 1902-8822|quote=a framework that rejects anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or uninformed mutation of a single model supported by a post hoc ‘natural selection’ of that model – is an inadequate analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and selfcontrolled process. pp 161}}</ref> The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen.

==Creation, Creatio ex nihilo==

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way the choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint.<ref>http://www.tested.com/science/math/43887-noise-from-nothingness-the-quantum-random-number-generator/</ref> When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the decisions found.

==Other views==

Non creationist views on free will treat the agency of a decision as a matter of objective fact. Through a generally accepted policy of sustained intellectual thuggery against consideration of a subjectively identified spiritual domain, the overwhelming majority of scientists and intellectuals in the world at present currently support a socalled compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists and intellectuals currently provide no room for subjectivity.

===Compatibilism===
This doctrine redefines the meaning of all words associated to free will, to make them use a logic of force. For example darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. <ref>{{cite web|last=Torley|first=Vincent|title=Anatomy of a minimal mind|url=http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/Anatomy.pdf|publisher=philosophy department University of Melbourne|quote=Dennett, on the other hand, regards the attribution of intentionality to thermostats as more than metaphorical: he argues that if we are to explain what all thermostats have in common, we “have to rise to … a level that invokes belief-talk and desire-talk or … semantic information-talk and goal-registration-talk 1995a.}}</ref>

===Dualism of fantasy and reality===
This doctrine replaces the dualism of spiritual and material, with a dualism of fantasy and reality. The objects in fantasy are contrasted with objects in the external world, where objects in fantasy are regarded as not being real. For example Descartes used the latin phrase "cogito ergo sum", which means "I think therefore I am." To Descartes this meant a demonstration of the objective matter of fact of his spiritual existence as the owner of his choices. According to the logic of Ockham, this phrase only means a subjective assertion of purpose. Like a baker might say, "I bake therefore I am, baking is my purpose.", "I think, therefore I am, thinking is my purpose." Despite that there is a glaring inconsistency in that objects in fantasy are regarded as a matter of fact, yet they are regarded as not real, this is still an accurate representation of what these dualists believe. The distinction between gods and fantasy figures is lost with this kind of dualism, leading to widespread ridicule of religion by people believing in this doctrine, accusing religious people of believing in fantasy figures.

===Determinism===
This doctrine advances an illusion of free will. Intellectually determinists deny free will is real, but in daily life they affirm it's existence on a practical basis as an illusion.

==External Links==
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professors-coyne-and-miller-clash-on-free-will/ Professors Coyne and Miller clash on free will] October 4, 2011
* [http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Questions_Molinism_Compatibilism_Free_Will.mp3 Questions on Molinism, Compatibilism and Free Will] Podcast by William Lane Craig.

==See Also==
* Randomness
* Probability


==References==
==References==
<references/>
{{Reflist|2}}


{{metaphysics}}
==External links==
{{ethics}}
{{Portal|Dinosaurs}}

{{Wikispecies|Thescelosaurus}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Free Will}}
* [http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=38742&is_real_user=1 ''Thescelosaurus''] in the [[Paleobiology Database]].
[[Category:Free will| ]]
* [http://www.dinoheart.org Willo, the Dinosaur with a Heart] - The official site for "Willo", from the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
* [http://www.thescelosaurus.com/ornithopoda.htm Ornithopoda] at the ''Thescelosaurus''! site.
[[Category:Metaphysics]]
<!--* [http://palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/500.html#Thescelosaurus ''Thescelosaurus'' from Palaeos.com] (Technical)-->
[[Category:Philosophical problems]]
[[Category:Philosophy of life]]
[[Category:Philosophy of religion]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Christian philosophy]]

{{Link GA|da}}
{{Link GA|es}}
{{Link FA|sv}}
'''Free will''' is the ability to choose from future alternatives

The logic of free will has 2 main parts, the agency which does the choosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, "what chooses" is called spiritual, "what is chosen" is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, called subjectivity and objectivity.

Subjectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the spiritual domain by choosing the answer resulting in a opinions or beliefs.

Objectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the material domain by measuring it, resulting in facts. <ref>William of Ockham, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2 , quote: "we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"</ref> [[Image:William_of_Ockham.jpg|frame|William of Ockham philosophically justified both objectivity and subjectivity]]


=== Overview of the dual categories in free will ===
[[File:Dualdomains.JPG|Left||the spiritual and the material domain]]

Love, hate, God, the human spirit (who you are as being the owner of your decisions), the soul, peace, fear are in the spiritual domain. One may also reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, provided one reaches the conclusion by choosing it. (emptiness is symbolized by the incomplete circle in the picture)

Decisions connect the spiritual domain directly to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

The body (and brain) is chosen over, you can move your arms this way or that alternatively, but also by eating one thing or the other your body becomes one or the other. The body then consists of chosen alternatives.

Clearly the alphabet, words, are also a set of 26 alternatives, from which is chosen. Consider the relationship between the word love, and the genuine love as it is in the spritual domain. One chooses the words “I love you”, and then one may opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was loving, but still alternatively one may also opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was hateful.

There are 2 pictures of superman, one wearing a red and blue dress, the other wearing a yellow and green dress. The difference in coloring is meant to illustrate that the fantasy figure superman also consists of chosen alternatives, and therefore fantasy in essence also belongs to the material domain. The question of what emotions the fantasyfigure superman has is a subjective issue, resulting in an opinion about the spirit of the fantasy figure superman. Many times people argue that God also belongs in fantasy figure category, that God is chosen, because there are many different gods witnessed throughout the world. However in general most all religions have made it clear they use the name God addressing what chooses, and not addressing what is chosen. Religions generally emphasize faith and not measurement, which clearly indicates the gods are considered by religions to be in the spiritual domain doing the choosing.


{| class="wikitable"
|-
! what chooses (agency)!! what is chosen
|-
| subjectively identified || objectively measured
|-
| spiritual domain || material domain
|-
| opinion (creates information) || fact (rewrites information)
|-
| soul || body
|-
| God,love, hate, self, happiness etc. || solids, gasses, fluids, (fermions), etc. fantasy figures, mathematics
|-
| creator || creation
|}

Decisions connect the spiritual domain to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

===Objectivity and subjectivity===

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then the information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape.

This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

In the case of the videocamera the information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on the videotape, in the case of the person the information was rewritten as electro-chemistry in the brain.

Where objectivity works by force, subjectivity works by freedom. The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the choosing is thus very different from measurement. If we want to identify the agency of any decision, then we must choose what the agency consists of.

For example: if X can turn out A or B in the moment, and the decision turns out B, then the question "What made the decision turn out B instead of A?" must be answered with a new decision between alternatives like:

1 - it was hateful that X chose B instead of A

2 - it was loving that X chose B instead of A

If for example alternative 1 is chosen, then that results in the opinion that it was hate which made X turn out B instead of A.

Because the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing, it means that for every question about what is in the spiritual domain there are at least 2 logically correct answers available. This doesn't mean that every available answer is morally upright, or that any available answer is morally upright.

== Logical fallacy of scientism ==
[[File:Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) 3781567513.jpg|right|thumb|The "mad evil scientist" is a staple character in Hollywood productions, like the portrayal by Jim Parsons of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory TV-show]]
Refers to an argument common among scientists, which argument is to reject the existence of subjectively identified things, because subjectively identified things cannot be objectively measured.

The argument competes objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of all emotions, and pseudoscientific knowledge of good and evil.

In scientism the definition of choosing is redefind to mean "calculating an optimum" or "sorting out the best result". Instead of the focus being on the spirit in which a decision is made, the focus is on the "best" result of a decision.

The acceptance of scientism leads to the "mad evil scientist pathology", which is often caricatured in Hollywood productions involving scientists as characters.

==Biblical interpretation==

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world explains the importance of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] as real historical persons, made the first human choice; the choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and their own will as influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their [[sensory system]], which is analyzed by [[logic]] within the [[mind]], which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their [[sin]]. The [[original sin]] against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.<ref>[http://normangeisler.net/articles/theology/2010-EpigeneticsSolvesTheologicalProblems.htm Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained] By Norman L. Geisler, 2010</ref> By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

{{quote|1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=1-6}}

==Scientific evidence==

The problem in providing incontrovertible hard evidence for free will is to empirically establish the existence of alternatives '''not''' chosen. One can see the result chosen, but one cannot know the result was in fact chosen if one cannot establish the reality of the unchosen alternative also. In 2006 a team of researchers at the University of Illinois managed to search a database without running the search algorithm, instead exploiting the information on the alternative state that the algorithm '''could have''' run to infer the search result. <ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/extref/nature04523-s1.pdf </ref> This experiment proved that alternatives are indeed real, however in this experiment it is unclear whether the alternatives are in the future as is stated in common knowledge, or in the present.

Professor Daniel Dubois wrote a paper distinghuishing "strong anticipation" from "weak anticipation". Essentially the term "weak anticipation" refers to calculations of what the result will be, or sorting out the best result. The term "strong anticipation" refers to the actual future of alternatives that an object stands in anticipative relation to and decides. <ref>http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-45002-3_7?LI=true </ref>

==Politics and Ideology==
[[File:Charles Darwin 01.jpg|right|thumb|Charles Darwin wrote that love can be objectively measured]]
[[File:Cutout_expression_of_emotion_in_man_and_animals.JPG|right|thumb|Photographic evidence used by Darwin for his theory on equating emotions with physical manifestations]]
[[File:Ernst_Haeckel.jpg|right|thumb|Ernst Haeckel wrote that Jesus was loving, as a matter of pseudoscientific fact]]
[[File:CroppedStalin1943.jpg|right|thumb|Josef Stalin did not know what making a decision meant]]
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-811-1881-31, Adolf Hitler bei Rede.jpg‎|right|thumb|Adolf Hitler used nazi ideology to surpress his free will]]

Theories about free will in which the agency of decisions is treated as a matter of subjective opinion and faith are strongly related to ideological doctrines where democracy is central. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role, like Nazism, Communism, Atheism and Liberalism.

Social darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present. Starting from Darwin's theory of natural selection evolutionists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom (alternatives and decision), replacing it with knowledge in terms of force (cause and effect). Theories about people deciding in freedom were replaced with theories about people being forced by genes and environment. Agents of the human spirit, such as love and hate, were treated as a mattter of fact, instead of as a matter of opinion.

Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The expression of emotions in man and animals."<ref> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1142&viewtype=text </ref>, in which he explained all emotions in terms of a darwinian struggle for survival, and advanced a pseudoscience of measuring emotions using facial measurements.

In the early part of the 20th century the influential darwinist Ernst Haeckel wrote about the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character.<ref>http://www.pantheism.net/paul/haekrace.htm Jesus' noble personality was not semitic, but "more characteristic of the higher Aryan race"</ref>Haeckel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social darwinism is considered the main ideological input in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-A-New-History/dp/0826409067 most lethal aspect]. Because of the influence of social darwinism on Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin they largely did not even know what it meant to make a decision, which willful ignorance effectively sabotaged their conscience.

China is currentely drifting towards social darwinism. <ref>{{cite web|last=Dikötter|first=Frank|title=Throw-Away Babies
|url=http://www.frankdikotter.com/start-reading/throw-away-babies.html|publisher=Times Literary Supplement,|quote=Whether the regulation of sexuality has replaced ideological control as the main tool of repression in the People's Republic is an important question which is open to debate. It is beyond question, however, that the signs of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government guided by biological imperatives have been accumulating in China for some time, and anybody with a serious interest in that country and its people should consider the implications of that drift carefully.}}</ref> <ref>http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/social-darwinism-nationalism-and-humiliation-in-modern-china/</ref> <ref>http://edge.org/response-detail/23838 </ref> <ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60930-0/fulltext</ref> The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of social darwinism, where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived in a context of natural selection theory. There is a new onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom, replacing it with knowledge in terms of force. <ref>http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm</ref> Specially pseudoscientific neurological findings equating love with brainprocesses are offered as proof that free will is not real. However, the MRI brain imaging equipment which these neuroscientists use to disprove free will, was redesigned by Walter Schempp using a theory in which freedom is held to be real. The redesigned MRI made vast improvements in imagequality over it's predecessor.<ref>http://www.bcs.org/category/16212</ref>

==Psychology==

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness. <ref>http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260</ref>

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation <ref> http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract</ref>

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.<ref>http://spp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/43.abstract</ref>

==Biological function of free will==

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also provides predators with surprise in attack, and prey with unpredictability in escape.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. <ref>{{cite web|last=Taborsky|first=Edwina|title=Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak
anticipation|url=http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=180133786&url=0d3490b8c6d0e279f0b2fef473f4a08a |publisher=Signs vol. 2: pp. 146-187, 2008 ISSN: 1902-8822|quote=a framework that rejects anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or uninformed mutation of a single model supported by a post hoc ‘natural selection’ of that model – is an inadequate analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and selfcontrolled process. pp 161}}</ref> The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen.

==Creation, Creatio ex nihilo==

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way the choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint.<ref>http://www.tested.com/science/math/43887-noise-from-nothingness-the-quantum-random-number-generator/</ref> When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the decisions found.

==Other views==

Non creationist views on free will treat the agency of a decision as a matter of objective fact. Through a generally accepted policy of sustained intellectual thuggery against consideration of a subjectively identified spiritual domain, the overwhelming majority of scientists and intellectuals in the world at present currently support a socalled compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists and intellectuals currently provide no room for subjectivity.

===Compatibilism===
This doctrine redefines the meaning of all words associated to free will, to make them use a logic of force. For example darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. <ref>{{cite web|last=Torley|first=Vincent|title=Anatomy of a minimal mind|url=http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/Anatomy.pdf|publisher=philosophy department University of Melbourne|quote=Dennett, on the other hand, regards the attribution of intentionality to thermostats as more than metaphorical: he argues that if we are to explain what all thermostats have in common, we “have to rise to … a level that invokes belief-talk and desire-talk or … semantic information-talk and goal-registration-talk 1995a.}}</ref>

===Dualism of fantasy and reality===
This doctrine replaces the dualism of spiritual and material, with a dualism of fantasy and reality. The objects in fantasy are contrasted with objects in the external world, where objects in fantasy are regarded as not being real. For example Descartes used the latin phrase "cogito ergo sum", which means "I think therefore I am." To Descartes this meant a demonstration of the objective matter of fact of his spiritual existence as the owner of his choices. According to the logic of Ockham, this phrase only means a subjective assertion of purpose. Like a baker might say, "I bake therefore I am, baking is my purpose.", "I think, therefore I am, thinking is my purpose." Despite that there is a glaring inconsistency in that objects in fantasy are regarded as a matter of fact, yet they are regarded as not real, this is still an accurate representation of what these dualists believe. The distinction between gods and fantasy figures is lost with this kind of dualism, leading to widespread ridicule of religion by people believing in this doctrine, accusing religious people of believing in fantasy figures.

===Determinism===
This doctrine advances an illusion of free will. Intellectually determinists deny free will is real, but in daily life they affirm it's existence on a practical basis as an illusion.

includes graphic descriptions of the various emotions, and is admirably illustrated. It is generally admitted that his service consists chiefly in having shown the intimate relation which exists between the movements of expression and those of respiration. One of the most important points, small as it may at first appear, is that the muscles round the eyes are involuntarily contracted during violent expiratory efforts, in order to protect these delicate organs from the pressure of the blood. This fact, which has been fully investigated for me with the greatest kindness by Professor Donders of Utrecht, throws, as we shall hereafter see, a flood of light on several of the most important expressions of the human countenance. The merits of Sir C. Bell's work have been undervalued or quite ignored by several foreign writers, but have been fully admitted by some, for instance by M. Lemoine,5 who with great justice says:—"Le livre de Ch. Bell devrait être médité par quiconque essaye de faire parler le visage de l'homme, par les philosophes aussi bien que par les artistes, car, sous une apparence plus légère et sous le prétexte de l'esthétique, c'est un des plus beaux monu-

——————————————

4 I always quote from the third edition, 1844, which was published after the death of Sir C. Bell, and contains his latest corrections. The first edition of 1806 is much inferior in merit, and does not include some of his more important views.

5 'De la Physionomie et de la Parole,' par Albert Lemoine, 1865, p. 101.

[page] 3

ments de la science des rapports du physique et du moral."

From reasons which will presently be assigned, Sir C. Bell did not attempt to follow out his views as far as they might have been carried. He does not try to explain why different muscles are brought into action under different emotions; why, for instance, the inner ends of the eyebrows are raised, and the corners of the mouth depressed, by a person suffering from grief or anxiety.

In 1807 M. Moreau edited an edition of Lavater on Physiognomy,6 in which he incorporated several of his own essays, containing excellent descriptions of the movements of the facial muscles, together with many valuable remarks. He throws, however, very little light on the philosophy of the subject. For instance, M. Moreau, in speaking of the act of frowning, that is, of the contraction of the muscle called by

—————————————

6 'L'Art de connaître les Hommes,' &c., par G. Lavater. The earliest edition of this work, referred to in the preface to the edition of 1820 in ten volumes, as containing the observations of M. Moreau, is said to have been published in 1807; and I have no doubt that this is correct, because the 'Notice sur Lavater' at the commencement of volume i. is dated April 13, 1806. In some bibliographical works, however, the date of 1805-1809 is given, but it seems impossible that 1805 can be correct. Dr. Duchenne remarks ('Mécanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' 8vo edit. 1862, p. 5. and 'Archives Générales de Médecine,' Jan. et Fév. 1862) that M. Moreau "a composé pour son ouvrage un article important," &c., in the year 1805; and I find in volume i. of the edition of 1820 passages bearing the dates of December 12, 1805, and another January 5, 1806, besides that of April 13, 1806, above referred to. In consequence of some of these passages having thus been composed in 1805, Dr. Duchenne assigns to M. Moreau the priority over Sir C. Bell, whose work, as we have seen, was published in 1806. This is a very unusual manner of determining the priority of scientific works; but such questions are of extremely little importance in comparison with their relative merits. The passages above quoted from M. Moreau and from Le Brun are taken in this and all other cases from the edition of 1820 of Lavater, tom. iv. p. 228, and tom. ix. p. 279.

B 2

[page] 4

French writers the sourcilier (corrugator supercilii), remarks with truth:—"Cette action des sourciliers est un des symptômes les plus tranchés de l'expression des affections pénibles ou concentrées." He then adds that these muscles, from their attachment and position, are fitted "à resserrer, à concentrer les principaux traits de la face, comme il convient dans toutes ces passions vraiment oppressives ou profondes, dans ces affections dont le sentiment semble porter l'organisation à revenir sur elle-même, à se contracter et à s'amoindrir, comme pour offrir moins de prise et de surface à des impressions redoutables ou importunes." He who thinks that remarks of this kind throw any light on the meaning or origin of the different expressions, takes a very different view of the subject to what I do.

In the above passage there is but a slight, if any, advance in the philosophy of the subject, beyond that reached by the painter Le Brun, who, in 1667, in describing the expression of fright, says:—"Le sourcil qui est abaissé d'un côté et élevé de l'autre, fait voir que la partie élevée semble le vouloir joindre au cerveau pour le garantir du mal que l'âme aperçoit, et le côté qui est abaissé et qui paraît enflé, nous fait trouver dans cet état par les esprits qui viennent du cerveau en abondance, comme pour couvrir l'âme et la défendre du mal qu'elle craint; la bouche fort ouverte fait voir le saisissement du cœur, par le sang qui se retire vers lui, ce qui l'oblige, voulant respirer, à faire un effort qui est cause que la bouche s'ouvre extrêmement, et qui, lorsqu'il passe par les organes de la voix, forme un son qui n'est point articulé; que si les muscles et les veines paraissent enflés, ce n'est que par les esprits que le cerveau envoie en ces parties-là." I have thought the fore-

[page] 5

going sentences worth quoting, as specimens of the surprising nonsense which has been written on the subject.

'The Physiology or Mechanism of Blushing,' by Dr. Burgess, appeared in 1839, and to this work I shall frequently refer in my thirteenth Chapter.

In 1862 Dr. Duchenne published two editions, in folio and octavo, of his 'Mécanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' in which he analyses by means of electricity, and illustrates by magnificent photographs, the movements of the facial muscles. He has generously permitted me to copy as many of his photographs as I desired. His works have been spoken lightly of, or quite passed over, by some of his countrymen. It is possible that Dr. Duchenne may have exaggerated the importance of the contraction of single muscles in giving expression; for, owing to the intimate manner in which the muscles are connected, as may be seen in Henle's anatomical drawings7—the best I believe ever published—it is difficult to believe in their separate action. Nevertheless, it is manifest that Dr. Duchenne clearly apprehended this and other sources of error, and as it is known that he was eminently successful in elucidating the physiology of the muscles of the hand by the aid of electricity, it is probable that he is generally in the right about the muscles of the face. In my opinion, Dr. Duchenne has greatly advanced the subject by his treatment of it. No one has more carefully studied the contraction of each separate muscle, and the consequent furrows produced on the skin. He has also, and this is a very important service, shown which muscles



==External Links==
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professors-coyne-and-miller-clash-on-free-will/ Professors Coyne and Miller clash on free will] October 4, 2011
* [http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Questions_Molinism_Compatibilism_Free_Will.mp3 Questions on Molinism, Compatibilism and Free Will] Podcast by William Lane Craig.

==See Also==
* Randomness
* Probability

==References==
<references/>


{{metaphysics}}
{{featured article}}
{{ethics}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Free Will}}
[[Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs of North America]]
[[Category:Free will| ]]
[[Category:Fossil taxa described in 1913]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Ornithopods]]
[[Category:Metaphysics]]
[[Category:Philosophical problems]]
[[Category:Philosophy of life]]
[[Category:Philosophy of religion]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Christian philosophy]]


{{Link FA|hu}}
{{Link GA|da}}
{{Link GA|zh}}
{{Link GA|es}}
{{Link FA|sv}}

Revision as of 18:31, 24 May 2013

Free will is the ability to choose from future alternatives

The logic of free will has 2 main parts, the agency which does the choosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, "what chooses" is called spiritual, "what is chosen" is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, called subjectivity and objectivity.

Subjectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the spiritual domain by choosing the answer resulting in a opinions or beliefs.

Objectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the material domain by measuring it, resulting in facts. [1]

William of Ockham philosophically justified both objectivity and subjectivity


Overview of the dual categories in free will

the spiritual and the material domain

Love, hate, God, the human spirit (who you are as being the owner of your decisions), the soul, peace, fear are in the spiritual domain. One may also reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, provided one reaches the conclusion by choosing it. (emptiness is symbolized by the incomplete circle in the picture)

Decisions connect the spiritual domain directly to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

The body (and brain) is chosen over, you can move your arms this way or that alternatively, but also by eating one thing or the other your body becomes one or the other. The body then consists of chosen alternatives.

Clearly the alphabet, words, are also a set of 26 alternatives, from which is chosen. Consider the relationship between the word love, and the genuine love as it is in the spritual domain. One chooses the words “I love you”, and then one may opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was loving, but still alternatively one may also opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was hateful.

There are 2 pictures of superman, one wearing a red and blue dress, the other wearing a yellow and green dress. The difference in coloring is meant to illustrate that the fantasy figure superman also consists of chosen alternatives, and therefore fantasy in essence also belongs to the material domain. The question of what emotions the fantasyfigure superman has is a subjective issue, resulting in an opinion about the spirit of the fantasy figure superman. Many times people argue that God also belongs in fantasy figure category, that God is chosen, because there are many different gods witnessed throughout the world. However in general most all religions have made it clear they use the name God addressing what chooses, and not addressing what is chosen. Religions generally emphasize faith and not measurement, which clearly indicates the gods are considered by religions to be in the spiritual domain doing the choosing.


what chooses (agency) what is chosen
subjectively identified objectively measured
spiritual domain material domain
opinion (creates information) fact (rewrites information)
soul body
God,love, hate, self, happiness etc. solids, gasses, fluids, (fermions), etc. fantasy figures, mathematics
creator creation

Decisions connect the spiritual domain to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

Objectivity and subjectivity

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then the information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape.

This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

In the case of the videocamera the information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on the videotape, in the case of the person the information was rewritten as electro-chemistry in the brain.

Where objectivity works by force, subjectivity works by freedom. The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the choosing is thus very different from measurement. If we want to identify the agency of any decision, then we must choose what the agency consists of.

For example: if X can turn out A or B in the moment, and the decision turns out B, then the question "What made the decision turn out B instead of A?" must be answered with a new decision between alternatives like:

1 - it was hateful that X chose B instead of A

2 - it was loving that X chose B instead of A

If for example alternative 1 is chosen, then that results in the opinion that it was hate which made X turn out B instead of A.

Because the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing, it means that for every question about what is in the spiritual domain there are at least 2 logically correct answers available. This doesn't mean that every available answer is morally upright, or that any available answer is morally upright.

Logical fallacy of scientism

The "mad evil scientist" is a staple character in Hollywood productions, like the portrayal by Jim Parsons of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory TV-show

Refers to an argument common among scientists, which argument is to reject the existence of subjectively identified things, because subjectively identified things cannot be objectively measured.

The argument competes objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of all emotions, and pseudoscientific knowledge of good and evil.

In scientism the definition of choosing is redefind to mean "calculating an optimum" or "sorting out the best result". Instead of the focus being on the spirit in which a decision is made, the focus is on the "best" result of a decision.

The acceptance of scientism leads to the "mad evil scientist pathology", which is often caricatured in Hollywood productions involving scientists as characters.

Biblical interpretation

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world explains the importance of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, Adam and Eve as real historical persons, made the first human choice; the choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and their own will as influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their sensory system, which is analyzed by logic within the mind, which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their sin. The original sin against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.[2] By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Scientific evidence

The problem in providing incontrovertible hard evidence for free will is to empirically establish the existence of alternatives not chosen. One can see the result chosen, but one cannot know the result was in fact chosen if one cannot establish the reality of the unchosen alternative also. In 2006 a team of researchers at the University of Illinois managed to search a database without running the search algorithm, instead exploiting the information on the alternative state that the algorithm could have run to infer the search result. [3] This experiment proved that alternatives are indeed real, however in this experiment it is unclear whether the alternatives are in the future as is stated in common knowledge, or in the present.

Professor Daniel Dubois wrote a paper distinghuishing "strong anticipation" from "weak anticipation". Essentially the term "weak anticipation" refers to calculations of what the result will be, or sorting out the best result. The term "strong anticipation" refers to the actual future of alternatives that an object stands in anticipative relation to and decides. [4]

Politics and Ideology

Charles Darwin wrote that love can be objectively measured
File:Cutout expression of emotion in man and animals.JPG
Photographic evidence used by Darwin for his theory on equating emotions with physical manifestations
Ernst Haeckel wrote that Jesus was loving, as a matter of pseudoscientific fact
Josef Stalin did not know what making a decision meant
Adolf Hitler used nazi ideology to surpress his free will

Theories about free will in which the agency of decisions is treated as a matter of subjective opinion and faith are strongly related to ideological doctrines where democracy is central. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role, like Nazism, Communism, Atheism and Liberalism.

Social darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present. Starting from Darwin's theory of natural selection evolutionists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom (alternatives and decision), replacing it with knowledge in terms of force (cause and effect). Theories about people deciding in freedom were replaced with theories about people being forced by genes and environment. Agents of the human spirit, such as love and hate, were treated as a mattter of fact, instead of as a matter of opinion.

Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The expression of emotions in man and animals."[5], in which he explained all emotions in terms of a darwinian struggle for survival, and advanced a pseudoscience of measuring emotions using facial measurements.

In the early part of the 20th century the influential darwinist Ernst Haeckel wrote about the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character.[6]Haeckel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social darwinism is considered the main ideological input in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's most lethal aspect. Because of the influence of social darwinism on Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin they largely did not even know what it meant to make a decision, which willful ignorance effectively sabotaged their conscience.

China is currentely drifting towards social darwinism. [7] [8] [9] [10] The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of social darwinism, where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived in a context of natural selection theory. There is a new onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom, replacing it with knowledge in terms of force. [11] Specially pseudoscientific neurological findings equating love with brainprocesses are offered as proof that free will is not real. However, the MRI brain imaging equipment which these neuroscientists use to disprove free will, was redesigned by Walter Schempp using a theory in which freedom is held to be real. The redesigned MRI made vast improvements in imagequality over it's predecessor.[12]

Psychology

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness. [13]

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation [14]

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.[15]

Biological function of free will

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also provides predators with surprise in attack, and prey with unpredictability in escape.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. [16] The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen.

Creation, Creatio ex nihilo

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way the choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint.[17] When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the decisions found.

Other views

Non creationist views on free will treat the agency of a decision as a matter of objective fact. Through a generally accepted policy of sustained intellectual thuggery against consideration of a subjectively identified spiritual domain, the overwhelming majority of scientists and intellectuals in the world at present currently support a socalled compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists and intellectuals currently provide no room for subjectivity.

Compatibilism

This doctrine redefines the meaning of all words associated to free will, to make them use a logic of force. For example darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. [18]

Dualism of fantasy and reality

This doctrine replaces the dualism of spiritual and material, with a dualism of fantasy and reality. The objects in fantasy are contrasted with objects in the external world, where objects in fantasy are regarded as not being real. For example Descartes used the latin phrase "cogito ergo sum", which means "I think therefore I am." To Descartes this meant a demonstration of the objective matter of fact of his spiritual existence as the owner of his choices. According to the logic of Ockham, this phrase only means a subjective assertion of purpose. Like a baker might say, "I bake therefore I am, baking is my purpose.", "I think, therefore I am, thinking is my purpose." Despite that there is a glaring inconsistency in that objects in fantasy are regarded as a matter of fact, yet they are regarded as not real, this is still an accurate representation of what these dualists believe. The distinction between gods and fantasy figures is lost with this kind of dualism, leading to widespread ridicule of religion by people believing in this doctrine, accusing religious people of believing in fantasy figures.

Determinism

This doctrine advances an illusion of free will. Intellectually determinists deny free will is real, but in daily life they affirm it's existence on a practical basis as an illusion.

See Also

  • Randomness
  • Probability

References

  1. ^ William of Ockham, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2 , quote: "we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"
  2. ^ Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained By Norman L. Geisler, 2010
  3. ^ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/extref/nature04523-s1.pdf
  4. ^ http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-45002-3_7?LI=true
  5. ^ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1142&viewtype=text
  6. ^ http://www.pantheism.net/paul/haekrace.htm Jesus' noble personality was not semitic, but "more characteristic of the higher Aryan race"
  7. ^ Dikötter, Frank. "Throw-Away Babies". Times Literary Supplement,. Whether the regulation of sexuality has replaced ideological control as the main tool of repression in the People's Republic is an important question which is open to debate. It is beyond question, however, that the signs of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government guided by biological imperatives have been accumulating in China for some time, and anybody with a serious interest in that country and its people should consider the implications of that drift carefully.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  8. ^ http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/social-darwinism-nationalism-and-humiliation-in-modern-china/
  9. ^ http://edge.org/response-detail/23838
  10. ^ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60930-0/fulltext
  11. ^ http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm
  12. ^ http://www.bcs.org/category/16212
  13. ^ http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260
  14. ^ http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract
  15. ^ http://spp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/43.abstract
  16. ^ Taborsky, Edwina. "Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipation". Signs vol. 2: pp. 146-187, 2008 ISSN: 1902-8822. a framework that rejects anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or uninformed mutation of a single model supported by a post hoc 'natural selection' of that model – is an inadequate analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and selfcontrolled process. pp 161 {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 76 (help)
  17. ^ http://www.tested.com/science/math/43887-noise-from-nothingness-the-quantum-random-number-generator/
  18. ^ Torley, Vincent. "Anatomy of a minimal mind" (PDF). philosophy department University of Melbourne. Dennett, on the other hand, regards the attribution of intentionality to thermostats as more than metaphorical: he argues that if we are to explain what all thermostats have in common, we "have to rise to … a level that invokes belief-talk and desire-talk or … semantic information-talk and goal-registration-talk 1995a.

Template:Link GA Template:Link GA Template:Link FA Free will is the ability to choose from future alternatives

The logic of free will has 2 main parts, the agency which does the choosing, and the alternatives which are chosen. These two parts are wholy different from each other, "what chooses" is called spiritual, "what is chosen" is called material. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, called subjectivity and objectivity.

Subjectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the spiritual domain by choosing the answer resulting in a opinions or beliefs.

Objectivity: to reach a conclusion about what exists in the material domain by measuring it, resulting in facts. [1]

William of Ockham philosophically justified both objectivity and subjectivity


Overview of the dual categories in free will

the spiritual and the material domain

Love, hate, God, the human spirit (who you are as being the owner of your decisions), the soul, peace, fear are in the spiritual domain. One may also reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, provided one reaches the conclusion by choosing it. (emptiness is symbolized by the incomplete circle in the picture)

Decisions connect the spiritual domain directly to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

The body (and brain) is chosen over, you can move your arms this way or that alternatively, but also by eating one thing or the other your body becomes one or the other. The body then consists of chosen alternatives.

Clearly the alphabet, words, are also a set of 26 alternatives, from which is chosen. Consider the relationship between the word love, and the genuine love as it is in the spritual domain. One chooses the words “I love you”, and then one may opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was loving, but still alternatively one may also opine that the spirit in which the words were chosen was hateful.

There are 2 pictures of superman, one wearing a red and blue dress, the other wearing a yellow and green dress. The difference in coloring is meant to illustrate that the fantasy figure superman also consists of chosen alternatives, and therefore fantasy in essence also belongs to the material domain. The question of what emotions the fantasyfigure superman has is a subjective issue, resulting in an opinion about the spirit of the fantasy figure superman. Many times people argue that God also belongs in fantasy figure category, that God is chosen, because there are many different gods witnessed throughout the world. However in general most all religions have made it clear they use the name God addressing what chooses, and not addressing what is chosen. Religions generally emphasize faith and not measurement, which clearly indicates the gods are considered by religions to be in the spiritual domain doing the choosing.


what chooses (agency) what is chosen
subjectively identified objectively measured
spiritual domain material domain
opinion (creates information) fact (rewrites information)
soul body
God,love, hate, self, happiness etc. solids, gasses, fluids, (fermions), etc. fantasy figures, mathematics
creator creation

Decisions connect the spiritual domain to the material domain, which because of the freedom in choosing leaves no evidence of a spiritual domain.

Objectivity and subjectivity

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then the information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape.

This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

In the case of the videocamera the information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on the videotape, in the case of the person the information was rewritten as electro-chemistry in the brain.

Where objectivity works by force, subjectivity works by freedom. The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the choosing is thus very different from measurement. If we want to identify the agency of any decision, then we must choose what the agency consists of.

For example: if X can turn out A or B in the moment, and the decision turns out B, then the question "What made the decision turn out B instead of A?" must be answered with a new decision between alternatives like:

1 - it was hateful that X chose B instead of A

2 - it was loving that X chose B instead of A

If for example alternative 1 is chosen, then that results in the opinion that it was hate which made X turn out B instead of A.

Because the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing, it means that for every question about what is in the spiritual domain there are at least 2 logically correct answers available. This doesn't mean that every available answer is morally upright, or that any available answer is morally upright.

Logical fallacy of scientism

The "mad evil scientist" is a staple character in Hollywood productions, like the portrayal by Jim Parsons of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory TV-show

Refers to an argument common among scientists, which argument is to reject the existence of subjectively identified things, because subjectively identified things cannot be objectively measured.

The argument competes objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of all emotions, and pseudoscientific knowledge of good and evil.

In scientism the definition of choosing is redefind to mean "calculating an optimum" or "sorting out the best result". Instead of the focus being on the spirit in which a decision is made, the focus is on the "best" result of a decision.

The acceptance of scientism leads to the "mad evil scientist pathology", which is often caricatured in Hollywood productions involving scientists as characters.

Biblical interpretation

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world explains the importance of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, Adam and Eve as real historical persons, made the first human choice; the choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and their own will as influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their sensory system, which is analyzed by logic within the mind, which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their sin. The original sin against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it.[2] By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Scientific evidence

The problem in providing incontrovertible hard evidence for free will is to empirically establish the existence of alternatives not chosen. One can see the result chosen, but one cannot know the result was in fact chosen if one cannot establish the reality of the unchosen alternative also. In 2006 a team of researchers at the University of Illinois managed to search a database without running the search algorithm, instead exploiting the information on the alternative state that the algorithm could have run to infer the search result. [3] This experiment proved that alternatives are indeed real, however in this experiment it is unclear whether the alternatives are in the future as is stated in common knowledge, or in the present.

Professor Daniel Dubois wrote a paper distinghuishing "strong anticipation" from "weak anticipation". Essentially the term "weak anticipation" refers to calculations of what the result will be, or sorting out the best result. The term "strong anticipation" refers to the actual future of alternatives that an object stands in anticipative relation to and decides. [4]

Politics and Ideology

Charles Darwin wrote that love can be objectively measured
File:Cutout expression of emotion in man and animals.JPG
Photographic evidence used by Darwin for his theory on equating emotions with physical manifestations
Ernst Haeckel wrote that Jesus was loving, as a matter of pseudoscientific fact
Josef Stalin did not know what making a decision meant
Adolf Hitler used nazi ideology to surpress his free will

Theories about free will in which the agency of decisions is treated as a matter of subjective opinion and faith are strongly related to ideological doctrines where democracy is central. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role, like Nazism, Communism, Atheism and Liberalism.

Social darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present. Starting from Darwin's theory of natural selection evolutionists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom (alternatives and decision), replacing it with knowledge in terms of force (cause and effect). Theories about people deciding in freedom were replaced with theories about people being forced by genes and environment. Agents of the human spirit, such as love and hate, were treated as a mattter of fact, instead of as a matter of opinion.

Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The expression of emotions in man and animals."[5], in which he explained all emotions in terms of a darwinian struggle for survival, and advanced a pseudoscience of measuring emotions using facial measurements.

In the early part of the 20th century the influential darwinist Ernst Haeckel wrote about the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character.[6]Haeckel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social darwinism is considered the main ideological input in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's most lethal aspect. Because of the influence of social darwinism on Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin they largely did not even know what it meant to make a decision, which willful ignorance effectively sabotaged their conscience.

China is currentely drifting towards social darwinism. [7] [8] [9] [10] The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of social darwinism, where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived in a context of natural selection theory. There is a new onslaught against all knowledge in terms of freedom, replacing it with knowledge in terms of force. [11] Specially pseudoscientific neurological findings equating love with brainprocesses are offered as proof that free will is not real. However, the MRI brain imaging equipment which these neuroscientists use to disprove free will, was redesigned by Walter Schempp using a theory in which freedom is held to be real. The redesigned MRI made vast improvements in imagequality over it's predecessor.[12]

Psychology

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness. [13]

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation [14]

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.[15]

Biological function of free will

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also provides predators with surprise in attack, and prey with unpredictability in escape.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. [16] The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen.

Creation, Creatio ex nihilo

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way the choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint.[17] When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the decisions found.

Other views

Non creationist views on free will treat the agency of a decision as a matter of objective fact. Through a generally accepted policy of sustained intellectual thuggery against consideration of a subjectively identified spiritual domain, the overwhelming majority of scientists and intellectuals in the world at present currently support a socalled compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists and intellectuals currently provide no room for subjectivity.

Compatibilism

This doctrine redefines the meaning of all words associated to free will, to make them use a logic of force. For example darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. [18]

Dualism of fantasy and reality

This doctrine replaces the dualism of spiritual and material, with a dualism of fantasy and reality. The objects in fantasy are contrasted with objects in the external world, where objects in fantasy are regarded as not being real. For example Descartes used the latin phrase "cogito ergo sum", which means "I think therefore I am." To Descartes this meant a demonstration of the objective matter of fact of his spiritual existence as the owner of his choices. According to the logic of Ockham, this phrase only means a subjective assertion of purpose. Like a baker might say, "I bake therefore I am, baking is my purpose.", "I think, therefore I am, thinking is my purpose." Despite that there is a glaring inconsistency in that objects in fantasy are regarded as a matter of fact, yet they are regarded as not real, this is still an accurate representation of what these dualists believe. The distinction between gods and fantasy figures is lost with this kind of dualism, leading to widespread ridicule of religion by people believing in this doctrine, accusing religious people of believing in fantasy figures.

Determinism

This doctrine advances an illusion of free will. Intellectually determinists deny free will is real, but in daily life they affirm it's existence on a practical basis as an illusion.

includes graphic descriptions of the various emotions, and is admirably illustrated. It is generally admitted that his service consists chiefly in having shown the intimate relation which exists between the movements of expression and those of respiration. One of the most important points, small as it may at first appear, is that the muscles round the eyes are involuntarily contracted during violent expiratory efforts, in order to protect these delicate organs from the pressure of the blood. This fact, which has been fully investigated for me with the greatest kindness by Professor Donders of Utrecht, throws, as we shall hereafter see, a flood of light on several of the most important expressions of the human countenance. The merits of Sir C. Bell's work have been undervalued or quite ignored by several foreign writers, but have been fully admitted by some, for instance by M. Lemoine,5 who with great justice says:—"Le livre de Ch. Bell devrait être médité par quiconque essaye de faire parler le visage de l'homme, par les philosophes aussi bien que par les artistes, car, sous une apparence plus légère et sous le prétexte de l'esthétique, c'est un des plus beaux monu-

——————————————

4 I always quote from the third edition, 1844, which was published after the death of Sir C. Bell, and contains his latest corrections. The first edition of 1806 is much inferior in merit, and does not include some of his more important views.

5 'De la Physionomie et de la Parole,' par Albert Lemoine, 1865, p. 101.

[page] 3

ments de la science des rapports du physique et du moral."

From reasons which will presently be assigned, Sir C. Bell did not attempt to follow out his views as far as they might have been carried. He does not try to explain why different muscles are brought into action under different emotions; why, for instance, the inner ends of the eyebrows are raised, and the corners of the mouth depressed, by a person suffering from grief or anxiety.

In 1807 M. Moreau edited an edition of Lavater on Physiognomy,6 in which he incorporated several of his own essays, containing excellent descriptions of the movements of the facial muscles, together with many valuable remarks. He throws, however, very little light on the philosophy of the subject. For instance, M. Moreau, in speaking of the act of frowning, that is, of the contraction of the muscle called by

—————————————

6 'L'Art de connaître les Hommes,' &c., par G. Lavater. The earliest edition of this work, referred to in the preface to the edition of 1820 in ten volumes, as containing the observations of M. Moreau, is said to have been published in 1807; and I have no doubt that this is correct, because the 'Notice sur Lavater' at the commencement of volume i. is dated April 13, 1806. In some bibliographical works, however, the date of 1805-1809 is given, but it seems impossible that 1805 can be correct. Dr. Duchenne remarks ('Mécanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' 8vo edit. 1862, p. 5. and 'Archives Générales de Médecine,' Jan. et Fév. 1862) that M. Moreau "a composé pour son ouvrage un article important," &c., in the year 1805; and I find in volume i. of the edition of 1820 passages bearing the dates of December 12, 1805, and another January 5, 1806, besides that of April 13, 1806, above referred to. In consequence of some of these passages having thus been composed in 1805, Dr. Duchenne assigns to M. Moreau the priority over Sir C. Bell, whose work, as we have seen, was published in 1806. This is a very unusual manner of determining the priority of scientific works; but such questions are of extremely little importance in comparison with their relative merits. The passages above quoted from M. Moreau and from Le Brun are taken in this and all other cases from the edition of 1820 of Lavater, tom. iv. p. 228, and tom. ix. p. 279.

B 2

[page] 4

French writers the sourcilier (corrugator supercilii), remarks with truth:—"Cette action des sourciliers est un des symptômes les plus tranchés de l'expression des affections pénibles ou concentrées." He then adds that these muscles, from their attachment and position, are fitted "à resserrer, à concentrer les principaux traits de la face, comme il convient dans toutes ces passions vraiment oppressives ou profondes, dans ces affections dont le sentiment semble porter l'organisation à revenir sur elle-même, à se contracter et à s'amoindrir, comme pour offrir moins de prise et de surface à des impressions redoutables ou importunes." He who thinks that remarks of this kind throw any light on the meaning or origin of the different expressions, takes a very different view of the subject to what I do.

In the above passage there is but a slight, if any, advance in the philosophy of the subject, beyond that reached by the painter Le Brun, who, in 1667, in describing the expression of fright, says:—"Le sourcil qui est abaissé d'un côté et élevé de l'autre, fait voir que la partie élevée semble le vouloir joindre au cerveau pour le garantir du mal que l'âme aperçoit, et le côté qui est abaissé et qui paraît enflé, nous fait trouver dans cet état par les esprits qui viennent du cerveau en abondance, comme pour couvrir l'âme et la défendre du mal qu'elle craint; la bouche fort ouverte fait voir le saisissement du cœur, par le sang qui se retire vers lui, ce qui l'oblige, voulant respirer, à faire un effort qui est cause que la bouche s'ouvre extrêmement, et qui, lorsqu'il passe par les organes de la voix, forme un son qui n'est point articulé; que si les muscles et les veines paraissent enflés, ce n'est que par les esprits que le cerveau envoie en ces parties-là." I have thought the fore-

[page] 5

going sentences worth quoting, as specimens of the surprising nonsense which has been written on the subject.

'The Physiology or Mechanism of Blushing,' by Dr. Burgess, appeared in 1839, and to this work I shall frequently refer in my thirteenth Chapter.

In 1862 Dr. Duchenne published two editions, in folio and octavo, of his 'Mécanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' in which he analyses by means of electricity, and illustrates by magnificent photographs, the movements of the facial muscles. He has generously permitted me to copy as many of his photographs as I desired. His works have been spoken lightly of, or quite passed over, by some of his countrymen. It is possible that Dr. Duchenne may have exaggerated the importance of the contraction of single muscles in giving expression; for, owing to the intimate manner in which the muscles are connected, as may be seen in Henle's anatomical drawings7—the best I believe ever published—it is difficult to believe in their separate action. Nevertheless, it is manifest that Dr. Duchenne clearly apprehended this and other sources of error, and as it is known that he was eminently successful in elucidating the physiology of the muscles of the hand by the aid of electricity, it is probable that he is generally in the right about the muscles of the face. In my opinion, Dr. Duchenne has greatly advanced the subject by his treatment of it. No one has more carefully studied the contraction of each separate muscle, and the consequent furrows produced on the skin. He has also, and this is a very important service, shown which muscles


See Also

  • Randomness
  • Probability

References

  1. ^ William of Ockham, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_050.html#ocksec2 , quote: "we can have no knowledge of an immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically. Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith"
  2. ^ Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems: Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained By Norman L. Geisler, 2010
  3. ^ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/extref/nature04523-s1.pdf
  4. ^ http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-45002-3_7?LI=true
  5. ^ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1142&viewtype=text
  6. ^ http://www.pantheism.net/paul/haekrace.htm Jesus' noble personality was not semitic, but "more characteristic of the higher Aryan race"
  7. ^ Dikötter, Frank. "Throw-Away Babies". Times Literary Supplement,. Whether the regulation of sexuality has replaced ideological control as the main tool of repression in the People's Republic is an important question which is open to debate. It is beyond question, however, that the signs of a drift towards an authoritarian form of government guided by biological imperatives have been accumulating in China for some time, and anybody with a serious interest in that country and its people should consider the implications of that drift carefully.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  8. ^ http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/social-darwinism-nationalism-and-humiliation-in-modern-china/
  9. ^ http://edge.org/response-detail/23838
  10. ^ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60930-0/fulltext
  11. ^ http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm
  12. ^ http://www.bcs.org/category/16212
  13. ^ http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260
  14. ^ http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract
  15. ^ http://spp.sagepub.com/content/1/1/43.abstract
  16. ^ Taborsky, Edwina. "Biological Organisms as Semiosic Systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipation". Signs vol. 2: pp. 146-187, 2008 ISSN: 1902-8822. a framework that rejects anticipation and is instead based around a primary random or uninformed mutation of a single model supported by a post hoc 'natural selection' of that model – is an inadequate analysis. The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and selfcontrolled process. pp 161 {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 76 (help)
  17. ^ http://www.tested.com/science/math/43887-noise-from-nothingness-the-quantum-random-number-generator/
  18. ^ Torley, Vincent. "Anatomy of a minimal mind" (PDF). philosophy department University of Melbourne. Dennett, on the other hand, regards the attribution of intentionality to thermostats as more than metaphorical: he argues that if we are to explain what all thermostats have in common, we "have to rise to … a level that invokes belief-talk and desire-talk or … semantic information-talk and goal-registration-talk 1995a.

Template:Link GA Template:Link GA Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Thescelosaurus&oldid=556618978"