A simple explanation of free will.

[ryan]

Nope, it is much stronger than that. We now know that QM exists in living things and probably even the brain. We know QM dominates very small scales. And we don't know the details on much of the neurological processes. This is enough to argue against the certainty that our decision making process is 100% classical mechanics.



You're forgetting that my argument is to show that DBT's certainty is unjustified.

Then you should try to show that.

We know that teapots exist in the solar system. Absolute certainty that one is not currently orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter is unjustified.

It's nevertheless perfectly reasonable to rule out the possibility in the absence of evidence to support the notion. Certainty is not possible. But that's true of almost all wildly speculative claims, and amounts to nothing.

When the best you can say for your notion is that it cannot be absolutely proven to be false, you've got nothing.

When I started arguing against the certainty of a completely classical neurological system, I did not know about the evidence suggesting that there are vibrating microtubules in the brain. I simply had a strong suspicion that QM, being the foundation of everything, could rear its head in such extremely small and intricate neuro processes. Then, sure enough, I find that there is evidence. And now I have found that quantum cognition is becoming a popular and pretty successful mathematical description of many aspects of the conscious behavior.

This is not a surprise to me - even though I am thankful it exists for the sake of my argument - and I am so annoyed that people can't see how obvious this is.

 

[bilby]

Then you should try to show that.

We know that teapots exist in the solar system. Absolute certainty that one is not currently orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter is unjustified.

It's nevertheless perfectly reasonable to rule out the possibility in the absence of evidence to support the notion. Certainty is not possible. But that's true of almost all wildly speculative claims, and amounts to nothing.

When the best you can say for your notion is that it cannot be absolutely proven to be false, you've got nothing.

When I started arguing against the certainty of a completely classical neurological system, I did not know about the evidence suggesting that there are vibrating microtubules in the brain. I simply had a strong suspicion that QM, being the foundation of everything, could rear its head in such extremely small and intricate neuro processes. Then, sure enough, I find that there is evidence. And now I have found that quantum cognition is becoming a popular and pretty successful mathematical description of many aspects of the conscious behavior.

This is not a surprise to me - even though I am thankful it exists for the sake of my argument - and I am so annoyed that people can't see how obvious this is.

So you have a prejudice, you seek confirmation of it, are glad to find evidence that supports it, and you are annoyed by people not finding it obvious.

You have just described a religious belief. Such beliefs are so commonplace as to be a cliché; they have no relationship whatsoever with reality.

 

[DBT]

Now all you need is an actual argument.

No, you need an argument that completely rules out QM from the decision making process. It is your certainty about an uncertain subject that I argue against.

"Quantum Cognition" is a serious and legitimate area of interest in academia.

Here is a quote from, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709 ,

What type of probability theory best describes the way humans make judgments under uncertainty and decisions under conflict? Although rational models of cognition have become prominent and have achieved much success, they adhere to the laws of classical probability theory despite the fact that human reasoning does not always conform to these laws. For this reason we have seen the recent emergence of models based on an alternative probabilistic framework drawn from quantum theory. These quantum models show promise in addressing cognitive phenomena that have proven recalcitrant to modeling by means of classical probability theory. This review compares and contrasts probabilistic models based on Bayesian or classical versus quantum principles, and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

.

From http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-theory-cognition-memories.html read,

In their study, Yearsley and Emmanuel M. Pothos, also at City University London, have proposed that quantum probability theory may be used to assign probabilities to how precisely our thoughts, decisions, feelings, memories, and other cognitive variables can be recalled and defined over time.

.

Are you still certain that QM has no effect on decision making?

''probabilities to how precisely our thoughts, decisions, feelings, memories, and other cognitive variables can be recalled and defined over time.''

Don't you realize that this describes the role of Schrodinger's equation....to predict how probability waves evolve over time....and has nothing whatsoever to do with free will, or the rational information processing of the brain as a whole?

You are clutching at straws.

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or futures time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilstic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' - Brian Greene.

 

[ryan]

When I started arguing against the certainty of a completely classical neurological system, I did not know about the evidence suggesting that there are vibrating microtubules in the brain. I simply had a strong suspicion that QM, being the foundation of everything, could rear its head in such extremely small and intricate neuro processes. Then, sure enough, I find that there is evidence. And now I have found that quantum cognition is becoming a popular and pretty successful mathematical description of many aspects of the conscious behavior.

This is not a surprise to me - even though I am thankful it exists for the sake of my argument - and I am so annoyed that people can't see how obvious this is.

So you have a prejudice, you seek confirmation of it, are glad to find evidence that supports it, and you are annoyed by people not finding it obvious.

You have just described a religious belief. Such beliefs are so commonplace as to be a cliché; they have no relationship whatsoever with reality.

Read at what I wrote again. Looking back on the argument, my intuition was correct. Unlike religion, I actually have confirmation now that QM might have a significant role in the decision making process. I posted links in my post to DBT.

 

[Juma]

I actually have confirmation now that QM might have a significant role in the decision making process.

But that is not what you argue. You argue that QM enables free will. That is a completely different issue.

 

[ryan]

No, you need an argument that completely rules out QM from the decision making process. It is your certainty about an uncertain subject that I argue against.

"Quantum Cognition" is a serious and legitimate area of interest in academia.

Here is a quote from, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709 ,

What type of probability theory best describes the way humans make judgments under uncertainty and decisions under conflict? Although rational models of cognition have become prominent and have achieved much success, they adhere to the laws of classical probability theory despite the fact that human reasoning does not always conform to these laws. For this reason we have seen the recent emergence of models based on an alternative probabilistic framework drawn from quantum theory. These quantum models show promise in addressing cognitive phenomena that have proven recalcitrant to modeling by means of classical probability theory. This review compares and contrasts probabilistic models based on Bayesian or classical versus quantum principles, and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

.

From http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-theory-cognition-memories.html read,

In their study, Yearsley and Emmanuel M. Pothos, also at City University London, have proposed that quantum probability theory may be used to assign probabilities to how precisely our thoughts, decisions, feelings, memories, and other cognitive variables can be recalled and defined over time.

.

Are you still certain that QM has no effect on decision making?

''probabilities to how precisely our thoughts, decisions, feelings, memories, and other cognitive variables can be recalled and defined over time.''

Don't you realize that this describes the role of Schrodinger's equation....to predict how probability waves evolve over time....and has nothing whatsoever to do with free will, or the rational information processing of the brain as a whole?

We were discussing whether or not QM could play a role in the decision making process. You said it didn't, and I said it might. I don't see how your claim holds.

Admit you were wrong.

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or futures time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilstic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' - Brian Greene.

I have no idea what he is talking about.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory".

 

[ryan]

I actually have confirmation now that QM might have a significant role in the decision making process.

But that is not what you argue. You argue that QM enables free will. That is a completely different issue.

We were arguing about that a long time ago. Since then, the conversation has shifted to whether or not QM could be a factor in the decision making process.

 

[DBT]

We were discussing whether or not QM could play a role in the decision making process. You said it didn't, and I said it might. I don't see how your claim holds.

Admit you were wrong.

That's funny. Decision making involves far, far more than Quantum probability. As I've pointed out numerous time, a simple breakdown in memory function disintegrates the ability to make decisions...this being a problem of connectivity, synaptic failure, etc, and not the work of Quantum states.

Quantum consciousness is an unproven proposition. It is a highly speculative proposition that you are trying to elevate way above its status in order to support your own speculations.

Decisions/selections are related to macro scale objects and events, something that quantum particles/wavicles themselves are completely unaware of, and therefore cannot make decisions about, which is something that eliminates your claim for quantum decision making

I have no idea what he is talking about.

That's probably the source of confusion.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory".

You see, if you had actually read and understood the article, you'd have seen that it also says:
From your link:
'So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts. The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.[7] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.)

Which is much the same as Greene said, and what I have been trying to point out to you.

Now, are you going to admit that you are wrong? That you are basing your speculations on a poor understanding of the subject matter, but a strong desire to support the ideology of free will?

 

[fromderinside]

I'd go woo, but, everybody knows ancient philosophers presumed that without a mind to perceive and organize there would be no world observed.

Maybe there wouldn't be any world at all without mind?

Rewording doesn't change the fact that I said it first.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread is now almost 300 posts long.

I guess that simple explanation wasn't so simple.

Nope. Just an instance mass fixation on their own 'truths'.

 

[ryan]

That's funny. Decision making involves far, far more than Quantum probability. As I've pointed out numerous time, a simple breakdown in memory function disintegrates the ability to make decisions...this being a problem of connectivity, synaptic failure, etc, and not the work of Quantum states.

I have answered you every time. Please read closely to this analogy.

Think of the neuro processes as roads in a country. You can only drive where the roads are. If you destroy a road, then you can't drive on it. This "infrastructure" of neurons is the classical mechanical part. But every once in a while you will come to an intersection (quantum cognition).

Quantum consciousness is an unproven proposition. It is a highly speculative proposition that you are trying to elevate way above its status in order to support your own speculations.

No, why do you keep saying this?!?!?! I have only ever argued that QM is a possible part of decision making, as opposed to your certainty that QM has nothing to do with it.

You are the one with the certainty; you are the one essentially claiming proof to the contrary.

Decisions/selections are related to macro scale objects and events, something that quantum particles/wavicles themselves are completely unaware of, and therefore cannot make decisions about, which is something that eliminates your claim for quantum decision making

Please read up on quantum cognition. The math of QM has some success and even a better model in some cases at explaining processes like decision making.

I have no idea what he is talking about.

That's probably the source of confusion.

There are so many interpretations and theories that it is impossible to know what he meant from that short quote.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory".

You see, if you had actually read and understood the article, you'd have seen that it also says:
From your link:
'So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts. The fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic QM is the Schrödinger equation. The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.[7] If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory. There are several interpretations that physicists and philosophers have given of QM which go this way. (See the entry on quantum mechanics.) Which is much the same as Greene said, and what I have been trying to point out to you.

Read the entire page. You can't just pick an interpretation and say that determinism must be true.

Now, are you going to admit that you are wrong? That you are basing your speculations on a poor understanding of the subject matter, but a strong desire to support the ideology of free will?

I honestly feel like my argument has become stronger, especially since I have found the area of study called quantum cognition. When I began this, I had much less confidence in my assumptions than now. I actually feel like I am building a pretty decent case that free will might be possible.

 

[Kharakov]

But that is not what you argue. You argue that QM enables free will. That is a completely different issue.

We were arguing about that a long time ago. Since then, the conversation has shifted to whether or not QM could be a factor in the decision making process.

Of course it is. You're talking about it. There is no way to avoid QM in a conversation that involves QM.

 

[ryan]

We were arguing about that a long time ago. Since then, the conversation has shifted to whether or not QM could be a factor in the decision making process.

Of course it is. You're talking about it. There is no way to avoid QM in a conversation that involves QM.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe fromderinside can translate. But, then, I will need you to translate what fromderinside says.

 

[DBT]

Read the entire page. You can't just pick an interpretation and say that determinism must be true.

I didn't say that QM is determinism. As I've pointed out in previous posts, depending on which interpretation you use, it indeed can be fully deterministic.

The many worlds interpretation restores Determinism, but the Copenhagen interpretation is probabilistic as represented by Schrodinger's equation.

''Before many worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.[12] Many-worlds reconciles the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics. ''

Not that either interpretation matters for your position, because either way you don't have regulative control of probabilistic wave collapse, radioactive decay (randomness) or many world expression of all states and conditions.

Your proposition is untenable in every scenario.

I honestly feel like my argument has become stronger, especially since I have found the area of study called quantum cognition. When I began this, I had much less confidence in my assumptions than now. I actually feel like I am building a pretty decent case that free will might be possible.

I'm sure you feel that way, but your feelings are mistaken.

As I pointed out above, you, your will or your consciousness does not have regulative control of quantum processes regardless of either interpretation. Of course there are other interpretations, Bohmian, etc, but there is no aid for your case to be found there.

Quote;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

 

[ryan]

I didn't say that QM is determinism. As I've pointed out in previous posts, depending on which interpretation you use, it indeed can be fully deterministic.

The many worlds interpretation restores Determinism, but the Copenhagen interpretation is probabilistic as represented by Schrodinger's equation.

''Before many worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.[12] Many-worlds reconciles the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics. ''

Not that either interpretation matters for your position, because either way you don't have regulative control of probabilistic wave collapse, radioactive decay (randomness) or many world expression of all states and conditions.

Your proposition is untenable in every scenario.

I honestly feel like my argument has become stronger, especially since I have found the area of study called quantum cognition. When I began this, I had much less confidence in my assumptions than now. I actually feel like I am building a pretty decent case that free will might be possible.

I'm sure you feel that way, but your feelings are mistaken.

As I pointed out above, you, your will or your consciousness does not have regulative control of quantum processes regardless of either interpretation. Of course there are other interpretations, Bohmian, etc, but there is no aid for your case to be found there.

Quote;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

Now you are back to this.

If my choices are free, then it would appear random to other observers. Do you remember the robot analogy a couple of weeks ago? After the robot analogy, the argument shifted to whether or not QM could have an effect on decision making - apparently it is theoretically possible. And now we are back to this.

I am the classical mechanics and the quantum mechanics - what else would I be? I am neither controlled by CM and QM, nor do I control the CM and QM (if we are sticking with monism). If this isn't true, then what is this "I"? If you don't believe in duality, then "I" absolutely must be QM or CM.

 

[DBT]

I didn't say that QM is determinism. As I've pointed out in previous posts, depending on which interpretation you use, it indeed can be fully deterministic.

The many worlds interpretation restores Determinism, but the Copenhagen interpretation is probabilistic as represented by Schrodinger's equation.

''Before many worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.[12] Many-worlds reconciles the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics. ''

Not that either interpretation matters for your position, because either way you don't have regulative control of probabilistic wave collapse, radioactive decay (randomness) or many world expression of all states and conditions.

Your proposition is untenable in every scenario.



I'm sure you feel that way, but your feelings are mistaken.

As I pointed out above, you, your will or your consciousness does not have regulative control of quantum processes regardless of either interpretation. Of course there are other interpretations, Bohmian, etc, but there is no aid for your case to be found there.

Quote;
If you accept regulative control as a necessary part of free will, it seems impossible either way:
1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise
2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control
3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible
4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

Now you are back to this.

If my choices are free, then it would appear random to other observers. Do you remember the robot analogy a couple of weeks ago? After the robot analogy, the argument shifted to whether or not QM could have an effect on decision making - apparently it is theoretically possible. And now we are back to this.

I am the classical mechanics and the quantum mechanics - what else would I be? I am neither controlled by CM and QM, nor do I control the CM and QM (if we are sticking with monism). If this isn't true, then what is this "I"? If you don't believe in duality, then "I" absolutely must be QM or CM.

What you say makes no sense. It doesn't matter how it appear to an observer, the observer has no access to the relevant information, the observer does know your inner workings, only superficial appearances. If you, yourself have no regulative control of your makeup, Quantum states, particle position and consequently what happens to you, you are not free. You are a puppet to underlying forces over which you have no regulative control.

 

[apeman]

I think your assumptions are wrong.

Imagination doesn't necessarily increase the chances of the survival of imaginative species...we can even imagine how to wipe out our particular species. The most advanced societies also tend to have the lowest birthrates.Also "creates a model" implies that we have a degree of separateness from the world around us.

Imagination leads to knowledge which in turn can be used to discard innate biases ("hardwired assumptions").

Evolution is an over-rated theory imo, for instance, we humans can use our imaginations in order to act in a non-evolutionary way...for instance by preserving the life of disabled people. The fact that we can act in a non-evolutionary way is actually further proof that we are free (to a degree) from the world around us.

And i thought ryan was clueless... :-o

Maybe you are the common denominator...the one who doesn't understand the other's argument , and then insults the person who gave the argument to hide your lack of comprehension ...I think it is you that is clueless.

 

[apeman]

The argument is , it's just that some people have written a load of shit that has nothing to do with the o p.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread is now almost 300 posts long.

I guess that simple explanation wasn't so simple.

The argument is , it's just that some people have written a load of shit that has nothing to do with the o p.

 

[apeman]

Not true. The universe at large works on well defined rules and principles, our conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear, general relativity and of course quantum...which has not been reconciled with GR.

Your will or my will cannot alter the rules of physics through an act of willpower, we can alter, reconstruct, modify and separate existing elements though the motor actions of out bodies and extensions, our tools.



You are confusing 'reality' - matter/energy, the laws and principles of physics, QM included, and the objects and events of the world that we interact with, and are ourselves composed of.

We can modify the latter, but we cannot change the rules and principles of 'reality' - we can work with these rules and principle, but not simply through an act of will.

We know that will can impose order ...the world is order ...the world is willed. That doesn't mean that the world exists because I will it though!

You were saying and implying far more than that in previous remarks:

I'm making the point that there may not be any such thing as mind independent material.

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

I've already pointed out that our wills are limited by the world around us (the laws of nature). The fact that we need will in order to utilise these laws of nature to create new things (within the laws of nature) implies that the laws of nature themselves are also willed...order requires will...and free-will requires order.

The "principles of reality" do not necessarily require the theory of mind independence. It is a very simple concept that if the world is mind dependent it is not necessarily dependent on my ( or your) mind. The universe could well exist as an idea rather than a non-idea (physical )...science is not equipped to know the difference between the two theories.

Will is not only limited by the laws of nature - which contradicts your implication that the laws of nature/the physical world is a product of consciousness/will - but limited, shaped and formed and generated by brain condition...which is no more subject to wishes and desires or conscious will than is the physical state of the Universe and its laws. Hence we have rational will, we have irrational will...but 'free' will is a misnomer. The reason why the term is irrelevant is because will is a product of brain condition and not its regulator.

- - - Updated - - -

There might be a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

The claim that something 'might' be is no claim at all, and you are wasting your time and ours with such speculative nonsense.

Your 'might' can join all the other 'mights' in the big bin of non-ideas that are masquerading as ideas.

Yes, indeed.

Look , the simplest way of getting this across to you is to ask the question (to you), how do you know this isn't a dream like event, where there are laws that create reality?

If you can't explain why this is definitely not a dream like (of the mind) event, then you must accept that your more complex explanation of reality stands on the foundation of unprovable belief. Why should we believe the more complex explanation if it offers us less than the simpler explanation...a simpler explanation that most people experience every time that they know that they are making a choice?

 

[ryan]

Now you are back to this.

If my choices are free, then it would appear random to other observers. Do you remember the robot analogy a couple of weeks ago? After the robot analogy, the argument shifted to whether or not QM could have an effect on decision making - apparently it is theoretically possible. And now we are back to this.

I am the classical mechanics and the quantum mechanics - what else would I be? I am neither controlled by CM and QM, nor do I control the CM and QM (if we are sticking with monism). If this isn't true, then what is this "I"? If you don't believe in duality, then "I" absolutely must be QM or CM.

What you say makes no sense. It doesn't matter how it appear to an observer, the observer has no access to the relevant information, the observer does know your inner workings, only superficial appearances. If you, yourself have no regulative control of your makeup, Quantum states, particle position and consequently what happens to you, you are not free. You are a puppet to underlying forces over which you have no regulative control.

It's just an interpretation that fits with observation and the feeling of will. What kind of an infinitely strange coincidence would it be that the universe so happens to give a feeling of free will and a behavior of matter that when uninhibited coincides with the intention. It would be like saying the relationship between gravity and matter might be a coincidence. Sure it is possible that gravity and matter just so happen to exist in such a way that makes them appear to be causally connected in some way; similarly, it is also possible that the feeling of intention is a ridiculous coincidence to the expected observations.

I know that I don't have proof, but I also know that I have not come across any reason why limited free will can't or even shouldn't exist.

 

[Juma]

And i thought ryan was clueless... :-o

Maybe you are the common denominator...the one who doesn't understand the other's argument , and then insults the person who gave the argument to hide your lack of comprehension ...I think it is you that is clueless.

Do so if you want to. That is really not my problem.