Before I describe the details: Where should I start? What's your technical background? Are you familiar with music-theoretical terms like "pentatonic scale", "swing rhythm" etc. and sound-engineering terms like "compression", "loudness" etc. pp.? If you're asking for details, there are so many factors. Where should I start?

What counts as rock in your book? — Tom Storm

Short answer: In my book, Rock is the opposite to Mahler and Chopin.

Re Beethoven's Rock'n'Roll elements: I'm thinking of his 6. and 7. symphony, among others. (And his powerful yet lovely urge for freedom, accompanied by a big "wall of sound". No Fender amps, no Marshalls, no VOX AC 30s required for that. And ... did he wear a white wig? No, just natural wild hair, haha.)

Good question. I forgot to mention another element of rock music. Initially I mentioned the sound of drums and string instruments, and certain rhythms. But what about the pentatonic scale? I think that's another typical element of "pure" rock music. Archeologists found ancient Egyptian flutes. When we play these we hear no pentatonic scale. So one may conclude they didn't use pentatonic scales at all.

Well, is the pentatonic scale really necessary? There are a lot of rock music styles that include non-pentatonic scales. But they feel like ... fusion, not like "pure" Rock'n'Roll. On the other hand, what can be "pure" anyway? Nothing. -- Panta rhei. -- Nevertheless, I also mentioned a certain way of life, a certain humour and freedom. It's about a certain feeling. The feeling I'm talking about cannot be expressed by the scale of those ancient flutes. The only remaining elements which may approach Rock'n'Roll are the Egyptian sounds; I mean their drums per se and their string instruments per se. I think that's not enough.

I understood your "gradation" as a reference to the amount of options, not to the will's intensitiy. I understood, the will which accepts 100 options has a greater freedom than that other will which accepts 3 options. Anyway, even this quantitative idea won't work, in my opinion, because the amount of options is a relative number: Considering 2 cakes doesn't necessarily imply a higher number than considering the cherry, chocolate, and nut of 1 cake. The large Sahara doesn't necessarily imply a greater variety than the small Stonehenge does.

Could there be a single universal non-dividable reason influencing any decision? I'd say no, not a single one; I see a threefold core:

1. Logic in general
2. Causality in general
3. Random in general

Is there one reason impossible to inhibit for decision-making? — Mww

Is there any reason among all reasons which cannot influence a decision? -- I don't think so.

Can all reasons influence a decision? -- Yes, I think so.

"The will is free."

The problem with this statement is that the expression "free" is incomplete.

Free of what? That's the missing part. The will can only be free of special reasons and causes.

So, I think the issue cannot be generalized; it needs to be specialized.

Example:

If I'm indifferent to cakes, there's no reason to eat one, nor is there any reason not to eat one. In this special case the will is free of cake related reasons.

But the will is not free in general. There's always a cause or a reason for a decision. It's impossible to inhibit all causes and reasons of the universe.

"My will is currently free of cake related reasons."

That is a complete statement because it gives the word "free" a reference. The word "free" makes sense now. Cakes are not influencing my will at this moment.

Choosing the cake that no one wants, that you don't need, that you think will taste horrible, that you are told not to choose, that will kill you, and without any need to choose anything at all - choosing that cake, can only be an act of freedom. — Fire Ologist

There's a reason to choose that horrible, toxic, useless cake. This reason leads the will. The will doesn't have the freedom to deactivate this reason. You may think there is no such reason, but I'd say there is one; you just need to take a closer look.

And if there's no such reason, then the cake selection is pure random. In that case too the will has no freedom; it's just controlled by a random trigger instead of a reason.

one can desire in accordance with whatever idea crosses his mind — Mww

Does this agree with Dawnstorm's idea regarding "trigger"?

1. Trigger. A sudden craving for cheese vs. seeing a piece of cheese and wanting to eat it. The object triggers the situational instance of will/desire, vs. something else (some association? a random firing of neurons?) triggers the will/desire. — Dawnstorm

I take these "mind-crossings" and other "triggers" into account in my illustrations, I just call them "reasons" (or "causes") instead of wills or desires. A trigger itself is not a will nor a desire. When the rising sun triggers my will to leave the bed, that trigger is 150 million kilometers away from my mental location. My will doesn't generate the sun. It's true that my will can generate another will, but -- vice versa -- my will cannot generate that same will's cause or reason. An egg cannot generate its mother.

Desire: in general, a subject's capacity to become, by means of his ideas, the cause of the actual existence of the objects of those ideas. — Mww

Do I understand this definition correctly? I can only desire something that is feasible?

"I want to become Superman" is therefore not a desire, as it's not feasible?

By the way, on Leo.org these four words seem to be synonymous:

desire
request
wish
will

I agree that the system is way more complex. I just wanted to show a simplified sample section of a dynamic "will" network that actually consists of a zillion wills. For the purpose of simplification I decreased the amount of wills to four.

The examples you added -- "go to the fridge" etc. -- are all fine. These are some of those zillion reasons and will-generators that I excluded in my simplified illustration. I'm not trying to say that reality consists of just four wills; I was just trying to illustrate the principle of this network.

If I may desire whatever I want, but it is altogether impossible to will whatever I want, then the two concepts cannot have the same meaning for me. — Mww

I can't desire what I want. For example, I'm heterosexual because my genes are programmed like this. I can't switch my desire for women over to men. That's impossible. My desire and my will is directed towards women. I don't have the freedom to change that.

Well, I can write some desires on a paper and send them to Santa Claus. I may wish to get a unicorn although I hate unicorns. These lines on that paper may all sound like desires. But I'm talking about real desires, not fake desires nor desires in the grammatical sense.

It seems to me that particular desires just are will-vectors, no? — bert1

What's the relationship between desire and will? Do they have the same target, or is will the result of a synthesis of bundles of conflicting desires? — Dawnstorm

Good questions. Two thoughts:

1. Desire and will have the same meaning. From now on I just use the word "will", but that's a synonym for "desire" too.

2. Will is not static. There are dynamic bundles, trees, branches of multiple wills. A certain will may last for several years or just for a few milliseconds. Example: I want to eat cheese (will A) and I want to lose weight (will B). This is a dilemma. Here comes will C which wants to compare will A with will B: What's more important now and in the long run? The hedonist-meter indicates: Will A is greater than will B. Here comes will D which wants to rely on the hedonist-meter; will D makes the final decision: Eat that cheese now and lose weight later!

Now, are A, B, C, and D all free?

A --> Eat cheese. Reason: It tastes good. The eater hasn't the freedom to deactivate this reason.

B --> Lose weight: Reason: The latest fashion dictates that slim bodies look better. The fashion follower hasn't the freedom to deactivate this reason.

C --> Compare A with B. Reason: Joy maximization. The joy maximizer hasn't the freedom to deactivate this reason.

D --> Make a final decision: Reason: Someone else is about to take this cheese. The final decider hasn't the freedom to deactivate this reason.

None of those special wills have the freedom to unlink themselves from their special reasons. The reasons generate the wills, and whether they're going to be fulfilled depends on the options available. The occurance of a special will may also be a reason for another will and so on -- like a chain reaction. Random events may disturb the chain's causality. In any case, I find it hard to integrate the word "freedom" in this system.

In addition to what I wrote above: I would distinguish between will und the ability to reach the will's goal.

Arnold's goal is to become an astronaut. That's his will.
Arnold is imprisoned in Alcatraz. This doesn't inhibit his will to become an astronaut.

Will is a mental function. The police can imprison the body but not the mind.

Geraldine wants to eat a cake. That's her will.
There are no cakes, so her will's goal cannot be reached. But her will is still there.

One more thought regarding the cakes in particular:

A cake is a complex thing.

Ten X-cakes don't neccessarily represent a greater option bandwidth than one Y-cake.

You can visualize ten X-cakes by drawing this bandwidth:

XXXXXXXXXX

Now you could add a will-vector that can point anywhere within this bandwidth.

Similarly, you can visualize that one Y-cake by drawing a bandwidth of its Y-elements (cherry particles, sugar particles, chocolate particles etc.):

CSHFGXCBNVMUIOQPLYP

Add a will-vector that can point anywhere within this bandwidth.

Now which bandwidth is greater? The one of the ten X-cakes or that of the Y-cake?

It cannot be answered. It's all relative. The degree of freedom (of options) requires a reference.

When something is free, it's free of what? Free of certain limits. On the other hand, these limits are relative, not absolute. Even God's enormous freedom, if he exists, is not unlimited: He doesn't have the freedom to be a non-God, because if he were a non-God, he wouldn't have that enormous freedom.

gradations of free will — bert1

I think "will" consists of just two parameters:

Direction and magnitude.

"Will" is a vector. "Freedom" is not a parameter of a vector.

In your model I see various wills and a variable range of options. Omni Otto steers the vector to a direction according to Otto's desire (by the way, avoiding the worst case in the long run can also a be desire). I think, freedom, in this context, is a metaphor for the range available, and this range doesn't lie in the vector per se; a vector is not a range but an "arrow", so to speak. Still, Otto's "decision device" is not really free; his desires are caused by something or occur at random. In either case -- causal or random -- it's not Otto's "will" that generates Otto's desire. "Will" is neither free nor unfree; "will" is just a force. Can a gravitational force be free? Can a magnetic force be free? No, it can only be forceful. It's something else that can influence a force. The force itself cannot influence itself.

So, are there gradations of free will? I would say there are gradations of will; to be precise: Gradations of the will's direction and the will's magnitude. If we talk about the gradation of options, then it's about options, not about will.

Sir, you're very creative. I like this combination of physics and non-physics. In the end it's all about information. What is information? Information is information.

Brain storm mode ...

Speaking of metaphors: Here's another coherence: Metaphors need to be coherent with the things they refer to, right? Gravity, for example, might be considered a metaphor as well (not in the lingual sense but in the ontological sense). Abstract all things, then see their cross-coherence at the metaphor level. Not at the macro-cosmos level, not at the micro-cosmos level, but at the metaphor level.

I hope you got the Darmok quote. It's a famous Star Trek episode that reveals that all symbols in our languages are metaphors actually.

I might borrow what you've said if ok. — James Dean Conroy

OK, haha.

I find your idea regarding "coherence" quite fascinating.

By the way, I didn't consider my wave thing a metaphor. I think it's simply a graphical description of a process, just like the graphical description of a sound wave that is visualized on an oscilloscope. Well, those graphics might be called "metaphors". After all, our entire language consists of metaphors. OK, in the end, that wave is a metaphor too.

Darmok: "Temba, his arms wide."

I think I can integrate your description in the "survival+" picture that James painted and that I agree with:

What you're describing is survival+, plus awareness, or survival imbued with intent, creativity, connection, risk, and rapture. — James Dean Conroy

However, I guess there's a gradual transition from "mere survival" to "survival-plus". It's difficult to insert a sharp borderline in between. What does "moment to moment" mean? How long is a moment? 1 day? 1 nanosecond? 1 Planck time? I just see waves at variable wavelengths and variable amplitudes. The wavelengths are the "moments" and the amplitudes are the intensity of the "plus".

Panta rhei.

becoming something — Joshs

When you survive a volcanic eruption, you become something you haven't been before: You become an experienced volcanic eruption survivor. You'll be able to tell great stories about what it's like to experience the heat of hot lava. You may become a teacher, a film maker, an author, a painter ...

something greater than mere survival — James Dean Conroy

I'm wondering: Is survival not a great thing actually? Reinhold Messner has placed himself in countless dangerous scenarios in the Himalaya and Antarctica and experienced immensely great feelings during the survival. Mothers and fathers see their newborn and are enthusiastic; isn't this an act within a survival story? Or ... let's go backwards nine months: The orgasm: Isn't that a superb feeling, and isn't it an element of the survival system? Or just take the risks in life: Moving to another place or starting a new project that could fail; while doing it one may truly enjoy the risks. What kind of risks are they? I think they are risks of survival. It's about great adventures. What might top that?

That philosophical idea is not just an argument against nihilism. That was just an example.

That philosophical idea is also just that: A philosophical idea. Understanding a context causes joy, the joy of understanding. If you're laywer you don't need to understand the Pythagorean theorem. Nevertheless, in the moment you understand it, you enjoy the understanding. Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? Small steps bring joy as well.

Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?

"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good. — Tom Storm

It probably won't help the victim of a brutal crime or disease. It might help a little when somebdy uses heroin because she or he is caught in a nihilistic tunnel view. I don't know. I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe.

If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows. — Banno

Something must grow from non-valuable to valuable, like non-grass to grass, like non-tree to tree.

Well, you could also say: Something must shrink from non-tree to tree, in which case it's the space around the tree which shrinks.

For me, it's irrelevant whether it's growing or shrinking. These are just relative aspects. Important is the process of change. Life changes. The change generates value.

What’s the next step? — Tom Storm

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees.

That's what I'd understood by your

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy

"Growth is what is valued". That we ought value life. — Banno

Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. Do you do this because you think the "ought" case is the only alternative to ending up in a trivial tautology? In fact, to me, this tautology is actually the whole point. Perhaps that's why it looks axiomatic too. Is it trivial? I'm not sure. It took almost 100 posts in this thread to recognize this tautology, hehe. I think a tautology is not necessarily trivial.

The problem comes when you raise value to a perspective beyond the individual. What even is this level? — Dawnstorm

I guess "value" in this context means "good". Now what is the definition of "good"? I think, the word "good" only makes sense if it refers to something: "What is it good for?" A knife, for instance, is good for killing. That, obviously, cannot be our subject. I'd suggest, everyone in this discussion using the word "good" should provide a definition of "good". My definition in this context is this: "Good" refers to a life system that can continue for billions of years. This is only possible if most creatures can rely on each other; this requires empathy and attraction ("love"). I'm describing a mechanical system, not a moral law. The fact that attraction ("love") is much greater than rejection ("hate"), stabilizes the mechanism. The mechanism gets disturbed indeed, and that makes the system alive. But the disturbances are self-destructive and therefore a minority. The minority is so small, i.e. the evil dose is so perfectly small-sized, that -- all in all -- even this small evil dose itself is, in the end, "good" as well. -- In short: In my view, "good" means attractive and stable. And this attraction is accompanied by joyful or happy feelings in the minds of most living creatures, I guess.

I don't see an "ought" either. I forgot to add this info to my last post. Since the start of this discussion I've been seeing just an "is", not an "ought". Just descriptive, not normative.

Isn't it a matter of choice?

I guess it's a matter of this quartet: Random, Causality, Logic, Math. You don't exist before you start to exist. You can only decide when you are there, but then it's too late.

What was called a "formal" version remains a bit unclear, but seems to be found in the following lines:
1. Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
2. Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation, and “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good. — Banno

What about that?

Premise 1: All living subjects are good.
Premise 2: A value generator is s a living subject.
Conclusion: A value generator is good.

Now, mass murderers are living subjects. Are they good? From their perspective they are good. From the victim's perspective they are evil. Obviously, goodness is relative rather than universal. There's always an excuse for the one or the other (see "vegan" debates etc.).

That's why I introduced that ratio factor in one of my previous comments. Evil things are rare, good things dominate by far. This ratio sets the trend: Life tends to the "good" rather than to the "evil". In a good system, most creatures can trust each other (a system of love, attraction). In an evil system, nobody can rely on anybody (anti-attraction, hate); that's why evil systems don't last long. In other words, I define the "good" not as a moral property but as a matter of attraction and self-stabilization.

In short: I think it's impossible to put life strictly into a stiff "goodness" category. There must be some flexibility so that the evolution gets some room for lottery games, without which life couldn't generate its essential variety. Goodness is impossible without a little bit of variety. Paradise is boring. Boredom is no good.

I read your comment which has been deleted (I don't understand why; it sounded on-topic to me). Thank you, James. I'll think about the spiritual aspects you're introducing on the basis of that axiom. I can't say I'm an expert in spiritual things. It's a difficult field for me. My first question would be: What is spirituality? Then: What's the link between spirituality and the afore-mentioned axiom that reads "life is good"?

Just an additional thought: Are pain and happiness equally distributed in life? What do you think? Or does happiness dominate? Obviously, pain is not entirely absent. Pain is there as a contrast to give happiness a meaning. However, if pain and happiness were equally distributed, then life would be, in summary, neutral rather than good. I think happiness dominates. That's why evolution has been running for billions of years. If life were neutral in summary, evolution wouldn't have any motor. That's one thing I would tell that nihilist you mentioned. Regarding the nihilist's claim that there were no choice, I'd add another thing: If the universe were predetermined, it would develop a regular pattern. But there is no such thing. There's random noise everywhere. At the quantum level, in the microcosmos, particles jump to random positions. That's why TV-screens look noisy; that's why radios and tapes sound noisy. There are no patterns, just random noise. Thanks to this random noise, life can develop its variety. The future is not predetermined. The future is determined by some (temporary?) laws and by some random factors. There are countless choices and they are not set yet.

I'd say the exact same but with one word added: Love Life — James Dean Conroy

OK. Maybe Love and Life are even synonyms. The two words sound similar, at least in Germanic languages, hehe. Anyway, a new living creature can only come into existence when two other creatures pair. Pairing is the essential basis for making love and life, I think. Life is a system of groups. A pair is the smallest group. The biggest group consists of about 8 billion homo sapiens. But the animal homo sapiens also lives with other animals, and most animals love each other. Violence is very rare. Wilde life documentaries show a lot of violence, but that makes less than 0.1 % of the entire film footage which may be thousands of hours long; in the final cut the film is just an hour long. They cut off most peaceful scenes because they consider them boring.

Explanation: A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection. — James Dean Conroy

This is exactly my way of thinking too, except that I allow emotional functions within this structure. I call this structure "love". But not in the romantic sense. I consider love a paradigma. In this paradigma there are elements such as attraction, fascination, empathy, the urge to help, the joy of being helpful, biological magnetism, sexual gravitation etc. This whole paradigma has been holding life on Earth together for billions of years. Random evolutionary mutation sometimes adds opposite systems, like nazi, fascist and other terror systems, but these usually don't last longer than a couple of decades; they destroy themselves because they contain no gravity, no magnetism; they are self-destructive as nobody can trust anybody within such a system; they don't include real love-based cooperation. They fall apart after a relatively short period of time. The others, the attractive ones, are the majority and their genes will survive billions of years along the evolutionary process.

To demand a world of comfort and security without suffering is, in effect, to demand a world without change, decay, or finitude. But such a world would be lifeless ... — Wayfarer

This is a logical conclusion. Being an agnostic, I assume the christian god is unable to manipulate these logical axioms (and all mathematical laws); he seems to be subject to them. Thus, this god's power is limited. He's a semi-god.

The true god is called Logic. There's another god called Random.

Logic and Random are very cold gods. They don't care about a specific pain limit. Logic provides the axiom that reads "life without variety would be no life", and Random sets the maximum possible pain experience at random. The christian semi-god has to follow their rules; he's employed as a hotel manager.

I understand that every scalable quality requires a certain bandwidth in order to generate contrast. Without contrast, the world would be gray. I just think it would be nicer, if the divine hotel manager, if he exists, had narrowed the bandwidth a bit more: Less intensive pain and less intensive enthusiasm.

I don't like to think in hard yes/no categories. I prefer gradual, relative thinking. So, a little pain is OK. That's not brutal. That's enough to get warned about caries or fire. It's not neccassary to exaggarate it. When there is a white spot on the photo, it's clearly recognisable; it makes no sense to overexpose the photo; it won't make the white spot whiter. I think this hotel manager has no interest in well-exposed photography; he's just a myopic sadist.

I really think that I do understand your point.

Even when just a single photon is sent at a time, and interference occurs, I think my question is on-topic. For example, the changing property might also lie in the photon's kind of spin etc. rather than in its location or velocity. I don't know. But I'm curious, and I still think it's on-topic.