In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

Terms like "feeling pain" and "experience" imply qualia. Do you really mean to use them as they are supposed to be used, or are you just using them to explain what why they don't need to exist?

Perception/feeling/self awareness/consciousness is an electrochemical/neural arcitecture/dendritic/neurotransmitter brain activity, but it is not understood how the brain forms the experience...that it does so physically can be demonstrated by electical stimulation of various brain structures which produces the whole range of feelings and emotions, love, fear, terror, etc depending on which location is being stimulated.

Calling this 'qualia' or 'non material' doesn't explain it any better, so what is the use?

 

[ryan]

Terms like "feeling pain" and "experience" imply qualia. Do you really mean to use them as they are supposed to be used, or are you just using them to explain what why they don't need to exist?

Perception/feeling/self awareness/consciousness is an electrochemical/neural arcitecture/dendritic/neurotransmitter brain activity, but it is not understood how the brain forms the experience...that it does so physically can be demonstrated by electical stimulation of various brain structures which produces the whole range of feelings and emotions, love, fear, terror, etc depending on which location is being stimulated.

Calling this 'qualia' or 'non material' doesn't explain it any better, so what is the use?

To put it in the proper category is a start, and then maybe we can start understanding what we are and what we aren't a little better.

 

[DBT]

Perception/feeling/self awareness/consciousness is an electrochemical/neural arcitecture/dendritic/neurotransmitter brain activity, but it is not understood how the brain forms the experience...that it does so physically can be demonstrated by electical stimulation of various brain structures which produces the whole range of feelings and emotions, love, fear, terror, etc depending on which location is being stimulated.

Calling this 'qualia' or 'non material' doesn't explain it any better, so what is the use?

To put it in the proper category is a start, and then maybe we can start understanding what we are and what we aren't a little better.

How do you know it is the proper category...given that nothing whatsoever is known about the nature or the reality (if such a thing was possible) of 'non material mind' or qualia?

 

[ryan]

To put it in the proper category is a start, and then maybe we can start understanding what we are and what we aren't a little better.

How do you know it is the proper category...

I don't know. That's why I am on here discussing it.

given that nothing whatsoever is known about the nature or the reality (if such a thing was possible) of 'non material mind' or qualia?

They probably said this about the stars at some point. I believe Einstein said that we will never have the technology to observe gravitational lensing. Metaphysics may seem wild, but I have a strong intuition that thinks it is understandable.

Also, this whole thing stinks of quantum mechanics and entanglement - I know it so strongly in my gut. How else can we know of time and dimensions if our minds are not entangled to some small extent through space and time, into the past, present and future simultaneously.

It also seems obvious that we think like a quantum computer. We are capable of making decisions. A classical computer does not make decisions. It follows orders from humans that have preserved our decisions into its program. The fact that we even understand the concept of a decision tells me that we must be simultaneously understanding that there are two possibilities to choose from. A classical computer may seem like it is making these choices, but it is not making these choices anymore that a log chooses to travel down stream.

 

[DBT]

. A classical computer does not make decisions. It follows orders from humans that have preserved our decisions into its program.

Not so, algorithms allow selections to be made in relation to a given set of criteria....which decision making. Computers have, with ever changing sets of options presented, routinely beaten master chess players.

A brain is a self programming information processor, learning through experience what is desirable and what is to be avoided (unless the reward exceeds the cost), and makes decisions on the basis of a given set of criteria possible. Not quantum entanglement, not non material processes, but macro scale objects and their relationships...an ability that disintegrates, as I've pointed out several times, in the presence of memory function loss.

Memory being the key to decision making by providing the 'software' - the 'algorithms' - and a given set of criteria that allows the weighing of cost to benefit in relation to a selection of a realizable option.

 

[Togo]

Ok, let me take another stab at it.

The kind of determinism that is unimpeded by this formula is one in which events are determined, but not necessarily predictable. However, one of the kinds of determinism being discussed is the idea that all events are not just determined, but determined by natural laws - specifically the kinds of natural laws studied by science.

The problem is that science is very much about making predictions, hence the emphasis on testability, repeatability of predicted results, and so on. On the surface this seems like a natural fit - science makes predictions, the future determined by past events, so you can kinda of handwave the idea that the predictions are the determinations, and future events are set by scientific laws.

But that isn't what we're seeing. What we're seeing is that this kind of prediction, in the case of a decision maker, may only be possible from the point of view of someone outside the system. But the 'scientific' causal determinism being mooted consists entirely of observations from within the system.

The point of thought experiments like the Gödel-Box is to show that determinism is not equivalent to causation. In particular, in a system where determinism works along the lines of causal laws, such determinism ends up actively hostile to the scientific method. Because science is about observable phenomenon being regularised into laws to make predictions, whereas determinism only survives if you assume that causal factors can not be fully understood and used to predict, even in theory.

I think I'm starting to agree with AntiChris here; the kind of determinism that says events are determined but not necessarily predictable is still deterministic enough to rule out libertarian free will, even given the existence of a Gödel-Box.

Yes, of course. That's why I'm not a compatibilist. LFW and determinism are incompatible.

Whether or not any observer inside the system could predict my decision, it is nonetheless the case that my decision was determined, such that whatever ends up happening is completely explicable after it happens by prior conditions, none of which include contra-causal free will.

Well they might, or they might not. It's only your belief in determinism a priori that distinguishes the two.

That's very frustrating for some, which is why they propose a stronger form of determinism, based around scientific inevitability. They want to be able to claim that the laws that make up determinism are knowable and what we observe. That's what the Gödel-box rules out.

In other words your formula only challenges "the kind of determinism" which is infallibly predictable from within.

Yes. This argument is only about determinism-as-science.

My problem with this is that I'm not aware of any kind of determinism which is infallibly predictable from within.

That will be the problem then. I'm specifically arguing against attempts to conflate determinism with existing scientific laws. Such laws being knowable and predictive, and thus not what would support a determined universe.

 

[The AntiChris]

I think I'm starting to agree with AntiChris here; the kind of determinism that says events are determined but not necessarily predictable is still deterministic enough to rule out libertarian free will, even given the existence of a Gödel-Box.

Yes, of course. That's why I'm not a compatibilist. LFW and determinism are incompatible.

I think you misunderstand  compatibilism

Compatibilism is not the belief that libertarian free will and determinism are compatible. Compatibilists defiine free will in a way that does not depend on freedom from deterministic causality.

In other words your formula only challenges "the kind of determinism" which is infallibly predictable from within.

Yes. This argument is only about determinism-as-science.

I googled "determinism-as-science" to no avail.

My problem with this is that I'm not aware of any kind of determinism which is infallibly predictable from within.

That will be the problem then. I'm specifically arguing against attempts to conflate determinism with existing scientific laws. Such laws being knowable and predictive, and thus not what would support a determined universe.

If you're simply saying that science cannot be relied upon to infallibly predict correctly in all cases (the problem of embedded predictability) then I have no disagreement.

It seems to me that your argument is not actually with determinism but with the claim that science can be a successful internal (to the universe) predictor in all cases.

 

[Bronzeage]

. A classical computer does not make decisions. It follows orders from humans that have preserved our decisions into its program.

Not so, algorithms allow selections to be made in relation to a given set of criteria....which decision making. Computers have, with ever changing sets of options presented, routinely beaten master chess players.

A brain is a self programming information processor, learning through experience what is desirable and what is to be avoided (unless the reward exceeds the cost), and makes decisions on the basis of a given set of criteria possible. Not quantum entanglement, not non material processes, but macro scale objects and their relationships...an ability that disintegrates, as I've pointed out several times, in the presence of memory function loss.

Memory being the key to decision making by providing the 'software' - the 'algorithms' - and a given set of criteria that allows the weighing of cost to benefit in relation to a selection of a realizable option.

Imagine a computer is given a specific sequence of data and processes it with a specific algorithm to produce a decision, could this same computer produce a different answer, if given identical data and the identical algorithm?

 

[ryan]

. A classical computer does not make decisions. It follows orders from humans that have preserved our decisions into its program.

Not so, algorithms allow selections to be made in relation to a given set of criteria....which decision making. Computers have, with ever changing sets of options presented, routinely beaten master chess players.

A brain is a self programming information processor, learning through experience what is desirable and what is to be avoided (unless the reward exceeds the cost), and makes decisions on the basis of a given set of criteria possible. Not quantum entanglement, not non material processes, but macro scale objects and their relationships...an ability that disintegrates, as I've pointed out several times, in the presence of memory function loss.

Memory being the key to decision making by providing the 'software' - the 'algorithms' - and a given set of criteria that allows the weighing of cost to benefit in relation to a selection of a realizable option.

Yes, I agree. This is where science is at today.

But, you said, "given that nothing whatsoever is known about the nature or the reality (if such a thing was possible) of 'non material mind' or qualia", so I gave you an answer on what I believe that we may know about this a non-physical entity and how it seems to work.

 

[DBT]

Imagine a computer is given a specific sequence of data and processes it with a specific algorithm to produce a decision, could this same computer produce a different answer, if given identical data and the identical algorithm?

How would a brain produce a different decision, a rational decision and not mechanical glitch, given identical inputs, memory, architecture and neural information conditions?

 

[DBT]

Yes, I agree. This is where science is at today.

But, you said, "given that nothing whatsoever is known about the nature or the reality (if such a thing was possible) of 'non material mind' or qualia", so I gave you an answer on what I believe that we may know about this a non-physical entity and how it seems to work.

I don't see that you have made the connection. Not at all.

 

[ryan]

Yes, I agree. This is where science is at today.

But, you said, "given that nothing whatsoever is known about the nature or the reality (if such a thing was possible) of 'non material mind' or qualia", so I gave you an answer on what I believe that we may know about this a non-physical entity and how it seems to work.

I don't see that you have made the connection. Not at all.

Different parts of the consciousness should only be conscious of one bit of information at a time. But there is a unity of information that we use to make sense of reality itself. Even if you tell me that we only have an illusion of the unification of information like separate pixels on a screen, then for that to be true, we would be unifying information to make that claim true. So ultimately it must be false.

However, quantum processing does this. It can simultaneously gather information about different parts of its environment. Classical computers can't do this and neither should the mind with classical mechanisms.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Different parts of the consciousness should only be conscious of one bit of information at a time.

And if twenty parts of the consciousness process in parallel, can it be conscious of twenty bits?
Can the brain work in bytes?

 

[ryan]

Different parts of the consciousness should only be conscious of one bit of information at a time.

And if twenty parts of the consciousness process in parallel, can it be conscious of twenty bits?

No, it would have to be 20 different consciousnesses working and only experiencing one bit at a time. There has to be something that unifies all 20 if anything is going to have holistic and comprehensive meaning, even an argument against this. Entanglement is a very convenient explanation.

Can the brain work in bytes?

Well it is people who make this measurement of information, just like we measure distance with meters. But yes, right now, everything that happens processes information at all levels. As far as science is concerned today, we only process information in a classical sense. But there is so much that they don't know about the brain that the door is not closed to quantum processes.

It is currently known how much information the universe holds, as long as it's an isolated system and has finite negative and positive energies.

 

[bilby]

And if twenty parts of the consciousness process in parallel, can it be conscious of twenty bits?

No, it would have to be 20 different consciousnesses working and only experiencing one bit at a time. There has to be something that unifies all 20 if anything is going to have holistic and comprehensive meaning, even an argument against this. Entanglement is a very convenient explanation.

Can the brain work in bytes?

Well it is people who make this measurement of information, just like we measure distance with meters. But yes, right now, everything that happens processes information at all levels. As far as science is concerned today, we only process information in a classical sense. But there is so much that they don't know about the brain that the door is not closed to quantum processes.

It is currently known how much information the universe holds, as long as it's an isolated system and has finite negative and positive energies.

Classical is not the same as digital or serial.

Analogue and/or parallel computing can model large sets of data simultaneously; we don't yet know enough about consciousness to declare that it can sensibly be considered as having 'parts', much less to declare that those 'parts' are only able to handle one bit of information at a time.

 

[ryan]

No, it would have to be 20 different consciousnesses working and only experiencing one bit at a time. There has to be something that unifies all 20 if anything is going to have holistic and comprehensive meaning, even an argument against this. Entanglement is a very convenient explanation.

Can the brain work in bytes?

Well it is people who make this measurement of information, just like we measure distance with meters. But yes, right now, everything that happens processes information at all levels. As far as science is concerned today, we only process information in a classical sense. But there is so much that they don't know about the brain that the door is not closed to quantum processes.

It is currently known how much information the universe holds, as long as it's an isolated system and has finite negative and positive energies.

Classical is not the same as digital or serial.

Analogue and/or parallel computing can model large sets of data simultaneously; we don't yet know enough about consciousness to declare that it can sensibly be considered as having 'parts', much less to declare that those 'parts' are only able to handle one bit of information at a time.

Please, please read this because it is something that you absolutely must understand. This will help you understand how everything comes down to binary computation including the brain, and I will also explain what this has to do with quantum computation. I spent a lot of time on this. Please read.

Before I tell what kind of information I am talking about, I will just call it universal information for now.

Once you role a die, it will have 6 bits of information (universal information). This kind of information is quantified ignorance. After the die has landed, it has zero bits of information. In other words, there is nothing else about the system that we can learn/know as far as our original question is concerned.

You can organize this information into binary, ternary, quandary or whatever you want. Using binary (you probably know this already, but please read because it is all going somewhere) we know that the die will either be 1,2,3 or 4,5,6. If it's 4,5,6, then we know that it will either be 4 or 5,6. Finally, we ask whether it's a 5 or 6. We got to the answer by answering "this" or "that" hence using a binary method. Ternary (trits) would be 1,2 or 3,4 or 5,6. Then if its 5,6 we need to use decimals, and it gets messy.

Binary is a base of two, or binary base, for the equation -log(b)p, where b = the number of choices and p = the probability overall (outcome/possibilities).

Using the equation, the die would have 1.63 "trits".

The interesting thing is that it was discovered that everything that happens can be quantified to be in this form of information. If we ask enough questions about, say, a thunderstorm we would know every detail down to each particle's state.

The more you ask "this" or "that", the less and less information is left. Eventually, the system will have revealed all of its information.

It turns out that there is a limit to how much information any system can contain. The limit is reached when the system is at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, nothing else can happen i.e. no more information can be revealed. No more energy would be left for a single particle to change its state.

The kind of information that this is formally called is Shannon entropy. It comes from information theory. I explained it my way to give you the just of it.

Now quantum computing is so much more interesting and seems to answer how we even know that there is more than one option that exists at any point in time. In other words, we could never know of possibilities if we are just isolated "this's" and "thats".

A qubit can either be in a 1, 2 or 1 and 2 state. This is more than just a trit. Because the third state can be a superposition of states entangled with multiple amounts of different systems, a qubit can have many bits of information. For example, if we entangled 6 particles, and the outcome of one particle determines the states of spin for the other 5 particles, then one qubit, in the physical form of a particle, can have 6 bits of information.

There is no known limit to how many systems can be entangled with a single system.

Even crazier is the fact that photons have this property too. A photon can be a qubit too.


*Anyways, the point of all of this is that we must be somehow "in tune" with what exists simultaneously like an entangled state. And since we are fundamentally quantum mechanically "driven", and made of qubits, it should be quite reasonable that we have an entangled consciousness that samples the past, present, future and other spatial dimensions simultaneously.

 

[bilby]

No, it would have to be 20 different consciousnesses working and only experiencing one bit at a time. There has to be something that unifies all 20 if anything is going to have holistic and comprehensive meaning, even an argument against this. Entanglement is a very convenient explanation.

Can the brain work in bytes?

Well it is people who make this measurement of information, just like we measure distance with meters. But yes, right now, everything that happens processes information at all levels. As far as science is concerned today, we only process information in a classical sense. But there is so much that they don't know about the brain that the door is not closed to quantum processes.

It is currently known how much information the universe holds, as long as it's an isolated system and has finite negative and positive energies.

Classical is not the same as digital or serial.

Analogue and/or parallel computing can model large sets of data simultaneously; we don't yet know enough about consciousness to declare that it can sensibly be considered as having 'parts', much less to declare that those 'parts' are only able to handle one bit of information at a time.

Please, please read this because it is something that you absolutely must understand. This will help you understand how everything comes down to binary computation including the brain, and I will also explain what this has to do with quantum computation. I spent a lot of time on this. Please read.

I was planning to; although by the time I got to here, I was beginning to change my mind

Before I tell what kind of information I am talking about, I will just call it universal information for now.

Or you could just get it off your chest... or even ask if I am already familiar with Shannon Entropy (hint: Yes, I am).

Once you role a die, it will have 6 bits of information (universal information). This kind of information is quantified ignorance. After the die has landed, it has zero bits of information. In other words, there is nothing else about the system that we can learn/know as far as our original question is concerned.

You can organize this information into binary, ternary, quandary or whatever you want. Using binary (you probably know this already, but please read because it is all going somewhere) we know that the die will either be 1,2,3 or 4,5,6. If it's 4,5,6, then we know that it will either be 4 or 5,6. Finally, we ask whether it's a 5 or 6. We got to the answer by answering "this" or "that" hence using a binary method. Ternary (trits) would be 1,2 or 3,4 or 5,6. Then if its 5,6 we need to use decimals, and it gets messy.

Binary is a base of two, or binary base, for the equation -log(b)p, where b = the number of choices and p = the probability overall (outcome/possibilities).

Using the equation, the die would have 1.63 "trits".

The interesting thing is that it was discovered that everything that happens can be quantified to be in this form of information. If we ask enough questions about, say, a thunderstorm we would know every detail down to each particle's state.

The more you ask "this" or "that", the less and less information is left. Eventually, the system will have revealed all of its information.

It turns out that there is a limit to how much information any system can contain. The limit is reached when the system is at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, nothing else can happen i.e. no more information can be revealed. No more energy would be left for a single particle to change its state.

The kind of information that this is formally called is Shannon entropy. It comes from information theory. I explained it my way to give you the just of it.

Great. Thanks for the refresher. It wasn't necessary.

Now quantum computing is so much more interesting and seems to answer how we even know that there is more than one option that exists at any point in time. In other words, we could never know of possibilities if we are just isolated "this's" and "thats".

A qubit can either be in a 1, 2 or 1 and 2 state. This is more than just a trit. Because the third state can be a superposition of states entangled with multiple amounts of different systems, a qubit can have many bits of information. For example, if we entangled 6 particles, and the outcome of one particle determines the states of spin for the other 5 particles, then one qubit, in the physical form of a particle, can have 6 bits of information.

There is no known limit to how many systems can be entangled with a single system.

Even crazier is the fact that photons have this property too. A photon can be a qubit too.

Gee, thanks, you just wasted the fraction of my life required to read:

1) A plea to read what you wrote;
2) A description of something with which I am already familiar; and
3) A description of something else with which I am already familiar.

The thing - the important thing, that I was really, really hoping to see - the thing that disappoints me so very, very much - is that you completely failed to mention what the fuck this has to do with the discussion at hand.

What you describe is not relevant to the comment I made to which you replied - it neither refutes nor supports what I said; and it is also not relevant as far as I can see to the broader context of a discussion about free will.

Could you please let me know why you think that any of this stuff is relevant to the current thread? I could post a bunch of stuff about the quaternary structure of proteins, or about the latest results in the National Rugby League competition, or about making ice-cream, and it would be true, and possibly interesting - but what it would not be; what it really, really would not be - is RELEVANT.

 

[DBT]

I don't see that you have made the connection. Not at all.

Different parts of the consciousness should only be conscious of one bit of information at a time. But there is a unity of information that we use to make sense of reality itself. Even if you tell me that we only have an illusion of the unification of information like separate pixels on a screen, then for that to be true, we would be unifying information to make that claim true. So ultimately it must be false.

However, quantum processing does this. It can simultaneously gather information about different parts of its environment. Classical computers can't do this and neither should the mind with classical mechanisms.

Doesn't work.

What we call 'consciousness' is a mental representation of information that has reached readiness potential.

Prior to readiness potential, light waves stimulating rods and cones, converted to nerve impulses, ion flow, transmitted to the visual cortex, propagated through neural structures gathering memory information, enabling recognition, etc, is not a conscious process, not is it quantum computing.

'You' the conscious self, ryan, is merely aware of the end product of readiness potential, your articles of vision; your computer screen (right now), people, houses, cars, trees, etc...none of this being related to quantum information processing or quantum entanglement.

Check out this article for more information.

 

[ryan]

No, it would have to be 20 different consciousnesses working and only experiencing one bit at a time. There has to be something that unifies all 20 if anything is going to have holistic and comprehensive meaning, even an argument against this. Entanglement is a very convenient explanation.

Can the brain work in bytes?

Well it is people who make this measurement of information, just like we measure distance with meters. But yes, right now, everything that happens processes information at all levels. As far as science is concerned today, we only process information in a classical sense. But there is so much that they don't know about the brain that the door is not closed to quantum processes.

It is currently known how much information the universe holds, as long as it's an isolated system and has finite negative and positive energies.

Classical is not the same as digital or serial.

Analogue and/or parallel computing can model large sets of data simultaneously; we don't yet know enough about consciousness to declare that it can sensibly be considered as having 'parts', much less to declare that those 'parts' are only able to handle one bit of information at a time.

Please, please read this because it is something that you absolutely must understand. This will help you understand how everything comes down to binary computation including the brain, and I will also explain what this has to do with quantum computation. I spent a lot of time on this. Please read.

I was planning to; although by the time I got to here, I was beginning to change my mind

Before I tell what kind of information I am talking about, I will just call it universal information for now.

Or you could just get it off your chest... or even ask if I am already familiar with Shannon Entropy (hint: Yes, I am).

I brought this up because you mentioned simultaneous processing. I wanted to explain what I meant when I said "simultaneous processing".

And, the last time I tried to discuss information theory, nobody knew what I was talking about. I am fiends with physicists who have no idea what it is.

Once you role a die, it will have 6 bits of information (universal information). This kind of information is quantified ignorance. After the die has landed, it has zero bits of information. In other words, there is nothing else about the system that we can learn/know as far as our original question is concerned.

You can organize this information into binary, ternary, quandary or whatever you want. Using binary (you probably know this already, but please read because it is all going somewhere) we know that the die will either be 1,2,3 or 4,5,6. If it's 4,5,6, then we know that it will either be 4 or 5,6. Finally, we ask whether it's a 5 or 6. We got to the answer by answering "this" or "that" hence using a binary method. Ternary (trits) would be 1,2 or 3,4 or 5,6. Then if its 5,6 we need to use decimals, and it gets messy.

Binary is a base of two, or binary base, for the equation -log(b)p, where b = the number of choices and p = the probability overall (outcome/possibilities).

Using the equation, the die would have 1.63 "trits".

The interesting thing is that it was discovered that everything that happens can be quantified to be in this form of information. If we ask enough questions about, say, a thunderstorm we would know every detail down to each particle's state.

The more you ask "this" or "that", the less and less information is left. Eventually, the system will have revealed all of its information.

It turns out that there is a limit to how much information any system can contain. The limit is reached when the system is at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, nothing else can happen i.e. no more information can be revealed. No more energy would be left for a single particle to change its state.

The kind of information that this is formally called is Shannon entropy. It comes from information theory. I explained it my way to give you the just of it.

Great. Thanks for the refresher. It wasn't necessary.

This is not just for you to read.

Now quantum computing is so much more interesting and seems to answer how we even know that there is more than one option that exists at any point in time. In other words, we could never know of possibilities if we are just isolated "this's" and "thats".

A qubit can either be in a 1, 2 or 1 and 2 state. This is more than just a trit. Because the third state can be a superposition of states entangled with multiple amounts of different systems, a qubit can have many bits of information. For example, if we entangled 6 particles, and the outcome of one particle determines the states of spin for the other 5 particles, then one qubit, in the physical form of a particle, can have 6 bits of information.

There is no known limit to how many systems can be entangled with a single system.

Even crazier is the fact that photons have this property too. A photon can be a qubit too.

Gee, thanks, you just wasted the fraction of my life required to read:

1) A plea to read what you wrote;
2) A description of something with which I am already familiar; and
3) A description of something else with which I am already familiar.

Something tells me that we can spare a few minutes in our lives, for better or worse.

The thing - the important thing, that I was really, really hoping to see - the thing that disappoints me so very, very much - is that you completely failed to mention what the fuck this has to do with the discussion at hand.

What you describe is not relevant to the comment I made to which you replied - it neither refutes nor supports what I said; and it is also not relevant as far as I can see to the broader context of a discussion about free will.

Could you please let me know why you think that any of this stuff is relevant to the current thread? I could post a bunch of stuff about the quaternary structure of proteins, or about the latest results in the National Rugby League competition, or about making ice-cream, and it would be true, and possibly interesting - but what it would not be; what it really, really would not be - is RELEVANT.

I added the overall point at the bottom right after I posted it.

 

[ryan]

Check out this article for more information.

I read the article, and it has a lot wrong. I wish I had time to tell you everything that I disagree with it and why.