Chaos Theory and Free Will

I go through theses cycles where I can't sleep. It's sort of a new thing for me and one that I find pretty annoying. But anyway, last night while I was laying in bed, half awake I got to thinking about free will again. Remember how Stephen Hawking likened our brains to weather? And remember when I was learning about chaos theory and how weather was used by Ed Lorenze as an example of a chaos, and how when graphed it plotted onto that funny butterfly shaped strange attractor? Well, I got to wondering if there was some way to quantify free will? And if that was possible, then would we see that it plots, just like weather does, onto an attractor? And how would that change our views on life? Or would it?
I guess you, like my BF, may be wondering what's the point of all of these questions. Like he said, if it doen't keep him young or make him rich, why bother? But I think it would be a pretty big deal if it could be proved that free will isn't "free". If it obeys the same rules and behaves exactly how other known chaotic systems work and behave, and can be predicted using chaos theory then I'd argue that it's not as free as we all think. If free will can be demonstrated (mathematically and experimentally) to function in essentially the same way as every other complex system, then I think that would be of great interest to us all....more philosophically than practically probably. After all, we can only understand our lives through our own personal understanding. We can only know our minds using our minds. So it practice whether or not there is actually free will is almost...irrelevant. (That's good news to me, since just like everyone else I like feeling like I have choices;)) And  I don't think I'd feel any different about what we call our "free will" in a practical sense if it turned out not to be as "free" as I think. I mean, I'd still feel like I am doing whatever I want so beyond that why would I really care?
But in a philosophical sense, I think it would really be quite profound...and to me personally it would be...comforting I think. I mean, I already know my body is a machine and I think that's pretty sweet, but to understand my choices as an "system" that obeys the laws of nature and exists in accordance with everything else I understand about the universe (instead of something unexplained and seperate) would be kind of a cool....I think. To see my lifetime of choices plot neatly onto one of chaos theory's "strange attractors" would be pretty spectacular...I think. If it turns out to be the truth I suppose I'll have to accept it no matter how I feel about it. But it's fun to ponder. I''m curious to know what other people might think about this.
Any thoughts? How would you feel if free will turned out not to be as free as you thought?

Of Wolves and Men: An Idea

I just read an article about the controversy surrounding the wolves that live in the West. It appears they were on the endangered species list, then off it, and are now back on again. The reason their "endangered" prefix has been re-instituted is because ranchers are killing them off again, the same as they did at the beginning of the 20th century. And they are doing it for the same reason. The wolves prey upon their livestock.
The article went on to say that wolf populations in the Great Lakes area are faring much better, and that the many reasons range from an overpopulation of white tail deer to more tolerant "educated" city folk who think saving wolves is cool.
So what it boils down to is that in the West the ranchers don't like wolves because they eat their livestock. Other than that I don't think they have a problem with wolves just roaming around.
So here is my ingenious (or just regular genius) idea.Find an inexpensive way to tag the cows (or maybe just the leader of the herd) with a device that emits a high frequency whistle that would frighten the wolves away but not be perceptible to the cows! 
Dogs hear in the range of 64-4500 Hz, cows hear between 23-2500 Hz, so it should be possible to have the frequency up around 4000 Hz that would work. It could even be a chip of some sort implanted in the cow (if they were inexpensive enough to produce) or maybe a collar that one or two of dominant members of  the heard would wear. Doesn't that sound like a good idea? Wolves would find other things to eat, and ranchers would be happy.
Or maybe the better way to go (in terms of expense) would be to tag the wolves with really low frequency transmitters that would alert the cows but not interfere with the wolves. If the cows were warned, and the wolves rarely successful, then maybe they would start hunting their natural prey. What do you think? Or do you have a better idea?

Spermaceti...It's Not What You Think

I was reading a really interesting article about ancient ocean predators, the giant Leviathans and Megalodons, and came across the the mysterious substance of spermaceti.
Spermaceti is a waxy substance found in large cavities within the heads of whales. It was originally thought to be actual sperm hence the name (and the origin of how sperm whales got their name also).
It was used in the past as an ingredient for cosmetics (I may never wear lipstick again) and candles.
The interesting thing to me about it is that no one knows what it's purpose is. My first thought was that it has something to do with buoyancy control, but it appears that scientist already thought of that, and it's not the best fitting hypothesis but it's still a possibility. But what else could a head of wax be good for? I can't imagine.
It must do something though. For it to have such a prominent position in the head, and to be present in such large quantities tells you something. (We just aren't sure what yet.)
If anyone figures it out please let me know:)

Evolution...what it ain't

The more I read about Darwin and his theories, the more I notice how mis-interpreted he and his ideas are by the general public. I am discovering that when people say "the theory of evolution" they don't really understand what it means. So I thought I'd take a minute to clarify a couple very important points.
1. Evolution is NOT a theory. Natural selection, are punctuated equillibrium are theories, but not evolution. So when one says "the theory of evolution" what they really mean is "the fact of evolution through the theory of natural selection". Keep that in mind when people say "Well...it is after all just a theory..." No it's not. There are hundreds of examples and proofs that evolution occurs. From the fossil record, to the history preserved in our mitochondrea, there is literally proof of evolution everywhere. It's a done deal folks. If you don't believe it, then you may as well just abandon reality all together.
2.Darwin himself never referred to his theory as "evolution". He called his theory "descent with modification". This is because evolution was already in use (see below) and because it implies progress (i.e. After years of practice the boy evolved into a fine violinist). Darwin did not believe that evolution was necessarily progressive and he did not think there was higherarchy in the natural word. He did not think sponges and ameobas were any lower than humans. He didn't think dog were higher than turtles. Many people during the time of Darwin called his theory "transmutation", because the word evolution was already in use to describe the process by which preformation (see earlier post) supposedly occured.
3. Darwin was not the first person to come up with the idea of evolution (as we know it today). There were lot's of people who thought up something simmilar before, but Darwin was the first person to come up with a solution to how it would work (i.e. natural selection). He was also one of the first to hold firmly to the idea that man was created by the same meachanism (natural selection) as every other animal, and that our consciousness and our brains are just the the by product of that process. (In contrast A.R. Wallace, who came up with the same idea as Darwin at almost the same time, thought that natural selection applied to every living thing except the human brain.)
For anyone interested in a more thorough reflection on this subject see the essay "Darwin's Delimma in Stephen Jay Gould's Ever since Darwin.

Oh! What a Theory!

Last week I read a really interesting book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by one Julian Joyce. It reminded me of reading "Ages in Chaos" by Emmanuel Velikovski when I was a teenager.
The main premise of the book is that human consciousness only developed a few thousand years ago, and before that the human mind was split in two, with the left portion of the brain taking orders from the right portion of the brain without realizing that the right side was really part of the same entity. Joyce claims humans interpreted the "commands" of the right temporal lobe as the voice of gods, and thus the supernatural and religion were born. Outrageous right? Of course it is, but it's not insane...and that's what makes it a good idea. That's what makes it an original idea.
That being said, I can't say I buy the theory. I love the idea of it, but there just wasn't enough...irrefutable data to make me shout "Eureka!" and jump on the band wagon. I don't think his "evidence" was concrete enough, nor were his arguments in favor of his idea all that compelling. Too much of what he discussed was conjecture, based largely on interpretations that cannot be proved correct or wrong with our present resources.It could be true, but how could you prove it? There is simply no way of knowing (unless more data comes to light) but it did get me thinking about a lot of strange things, which I will probably write about in the weeks to come. But in this post I wanted to focus on his the nature of his idea as a whole (as a single entity). I wanted to emphasize the fact that I really do like it despite the fact that I don't really buy it.
His theory is interesting, and a good one (in a theoretical "what-if" sense, not a practical test-worthy one) to me not because he is right necessarily, but because he is asking questions and positing solutions to things that perhaps only a handful of people on the planet have ever even bothered to ask. He is (or was, he died in 1993 I think) thinking fully and excitedly "outside the box", and provides a new idea crazy enough to be true, true enough to be possible, and possible enough to stoke the fires of my imagination. Now that's what you call a theory!