{Hi LAF, Thanks for the comment and subsequent email.}
Note: LAF's words do not have brackets, while {Tom's words} do
LAF: You’ll notice that I brought up the dreaded "random numbers" in my free will post. I think the explanation that:
{That’s OK, randomness provides the lubrication that keeps our reality and our free will working smoothly. There is only a problem when we get caught up in concepts of pure, absolute, perfect randomness — which is unnecessary to lubricate real processes}
LAF: "The PSI influence on the brain’s PMR computation is seen as a random input because it does not causally follow from the PMR computation. It only appears to be a random influence because the NPMR computation remains hidden."
(I have no problem with that statement — often, what we do not understand appears random to us. If we cannot perceive the pattern then it appears to have no pattern — i.e., looks random.}
might be the right way to look at it. I mean seen as a "random" input only formally from PMR, at least as a thought experiment when you "apply free will" (as MD mentions) and the PMR computation would suddenly go off in some direction. The free will input of course is not random at all. Some of the rare conventional good work on consciousness (Godel, Penrose) deals with randomness so to me this is a satisfying way of connecting it. Do you think this has some merit? Maybe I’m completely wrong or it is so obvious that it doesn't need mentioning.
{Free will action follows intent — intent has many choices, and each choice is full of unknowns — intent is for most of us an expression of our state of incompleteness and ignorance. There are lots of random components (fluctuations) about any instantaneous animating intent — forming up an intent to guide an immediate requirement for action/choice is not a precise process. Our calculations are bracketed by lots of error bars and represent a statistical process much more than a precise or deterministic process}
LAF: I also went off on a tangent when I mentioned PMR evidence of anomalies (photos, etc.) and how they sometimes have elusive life of their own and often disappear or transform, always leaving a indeterminate trail (sometimes contributing to conspiracy theories) and always obeying the PSI Uncertainty Principle.
{This is very true. The PUP is especially designed to drive PNR scientists insane

. That mysterious elusiveness happens with such regularity and certainty that one would think that somebody would begin to see there was something systematic going on — hey guys, notice the pattern! Either we are all nuts and incompetent or somebody has “fixed“ the game to always leave us empty handed of incontrovertible facts but awash with unexplainable enticing experience that nudges our understanding to find a bigger picture.}
LAF: I put this in because I just finished a book "Politics of the Imagination" by Colin Bennet that deals with anomalies and how the evidence is often so slippery, as would follow from the PSI Uncertainty Principle. I thought this might help explain that direct NPMR interaction is not necessarily limited to free will in the brain but always follows the PUP.
{I agree — free will is one instance, one example, the PUP covers all.}
LAF: I also claimed that:
"We must talk about micro-realms as the operational theatre for free will in the brain for "normal" human consciousness because of the PSI Uncertainty Principle."
Am I slipping into the "mechanism" trap again here?
{Perhaps, everything that occurs in our consciousness doesn't necessarily need a physical mechanism to support it — after all, awareness is nonphysical consciousness imagining a virtual reality, and an apparently nonphysical consciousness does not have to depend on an apparently physical mechanism (the PMR rule-set) to create or operate it. More often we use the physical mechanism to record -- not to create or even to communicate. Consciousness to consciousness energy transfers occur all the time with the physical mechanism (PMR rule-set causality) only in the record mode if anything at all. Physical mechanism does enable physical experience — the locally self-consistent PMR rule-set must be obeyed when it comes to PHYSICAL stuff. However, on the other hand, there is no reason that physical mechanism cannot be associated with NPMR data input at the micro level. After all the brain functions at the micro (and probably quantum) level — that is its everyday working level. How NPMR-PMR communication takes place and is finally processed and recorded for use in PMR (becomes a part of the virtual PMR entity — i.e., must abide by the PMR rule-set/causality according to PUP) is an unknown.}
LAF: I honestly do see the beauty of the fractal model. I mention the brain as a "Complex dynamic system with many levels going down to a deep base level likely influenced by quantum probabilities" but I only mention quantum probabilities might be involved because right now they seem to be the most obvious level where free will could operate while still being sufficiently hidden. And quantum states also react to observation. I know "assigning" a scale where free will operates is the wrong way to look at it, but if it operates within the PUP the micro-scale would seem to be the natural place.
{I like that last sentence: “I know "assigning" a scale where free will operates is the wrong way to look at it, but IF it operates within the PUP the micro-scale would seem to be the natural place.“ I agree wholeheartedly — quantum delivered data at the micro level would seem more natural than say microwave transmission from dark matter.}
Tom