I can say it with other words, but I think change in a probality is the most precise I've come up with so far. I don't understand why you think this is unclear. Yes like you said is what I intended, something becomes more or less probable, a probability becomes realised, all changes in a probability. The name, a name, for that point please. Then we can start discussing constructively about consciousness in a more formalized way.
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't throw away our common knowledge about consciousness that we have already. That's what's happening on this forum; well science can't find it, therefore there is nothing in it. It is of course likely that science wouldn't find free will, since the science about decisions, about things going one way or another, is almost non-existent. There is some new bigname scientist, I can't remember his name now, but Brad likes to reference him a lot, who does talk of "inherent randomness", which produces order. That scientist considers his own findings to be revolutionary, the most important since Newton and whatnot. Well maybe that scientist would be acceptable on this forum, but I still think the best way to go about it, is to look at what knowledge is in common language, and try to formalize it a bit, and see if it makes sense or not. And it does make sense in my opinion, our common knowledge seems to be right on the mark.
You guess wrong what I consider common knowledge, I'm referring to the way the concept of consciousness is handled in everyday language, and novels, and movies. And I'm not talking about movies, and novels which are selfconsciously about the concept of consciousness, free will etc, but practical usage.
I think the solution to control of the physical is nothing. A decision has a position, but does not seem to have any other physical attributes. So I might trace back a decision to a physical object, like a human being, but then it makes no sense to qualify the decision with the height or weight of the object. It is only the place where the decision occurred. Well maybe you can go further then that, and see it was in the brain of the person, and further, it was an electron in the brain. But I think you can go further then that still, and say it came from nothing, then to the electron, and the rest. (some well-known scientists say that the electron=nothing, but I don't understand this argument)
I think it is very oppressive, elitist, that common knowledge does not get the respect it deserves. And why? Why revert to almost total ignorance just because science doesn't cover it? Basically you're all just liars, using consciousness in common language as if it is true to fact, but not believing it. You say things that you know not to be true, you are therefore lying continuously. A more friendly way to put it would be to say that the common language used is inconsistent with the stated beliefs, but there is a lot of apparent hatefulness involved here towards religion and common knowledge, so it is more like lying.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
™ Version 4.2