Electromagnetic will model
In terms, electromagnetic will model (LH:#), aka “ABC model” (TR:10) (LH:2) (TL:12), or “induced will model”, explains how what has historically been referred to as "will" is a product or function of the electromagnetic force, mediated by the photon, the force carrier particle, acting or operating on hydrocarbon portions of the brain or mind, via triggering electron orbital position changes, which results in induced motion, aka "willed" motion, in anthropism speak, in the entire body, the body defined as an animated proton-electron configuration. As Maxwell (1878), the person who discovered the electromagnetic force (1861), poetically put it: "we, that is, all the work we’ve done, as ‘waves in ether [spacetime]’, shall for ever run". In other words, what we would have formerly defined as our "will" is redefined as the force behind the work we've done as electromagnetic waves in spacetime.
In 2007, Libb Thims, in his Human Chemistry, introduced the basic outline of "will", defined according to the electromagnetic force, results, using the retinal molecule as a basic model, of how "choice" and resulting movement occurs, i.e. bending movement results, in respect to photon exchange, which is the force mediator, and the Bohr model.
In 2014, Thims started the "ABC model" (TR:10), as diagrammed adjacent, so to give people a basic outline of how "will", or mental force predisposing or inclining one to some action, can be explained, particularly when the question of "free will" arises, the ABC part of the model referring to the three main mechanism steps involved in the retinal "moving" form the bent to straightened configuration, when in the presence of a certain electromagnetic wavelength:
- A. Retinal is in bent configuration (normal state).
- B. Light, of a certain electromagnetic wavelength, shines on the retinal molecule.
- An electron, in the region of one of the nuclei of either the C10 or C11 carbon atom, moves "up" in electron orbital structure.
- The "mind" of the retinal molecule, defined as the C10-C11 region of the body retinal, becomes more unstable, owing to its new proton-electron geometry.
- C. In reaction to this new state of instability, the [will of the] molecule as a whole [chooses to] "moves" into the straightened configuration (becoming more stable, as a proton-electron geometry).
- D. The light source is removed.
- An electron moves down in orbital structure.
- The [will of the] retinal molecule [chooses to] reverts back to the bent configuration.
The bracketed inserts are the anthropism-based descriptions of the mechanism.
Mechanism | Detail
In detailed mechanism of how the electromagnetic force changes, induces, or produces movement in hydrocarbon-based bodies, can be seen in study of the straightening and bending movement of the light-sensitive retinal molecule, which is summarized in detail below.
Goethe model (1809)
- See main: Goethe model
In mid 1808, Johann Goethe, a few months before he met Napoleon (2 Oct 1808), started writing a story called “The Renouncers”, which, according to one of Goethe’s assistants, was about a hero simultaneously in love with four women; the synopsis of which, in Goethe’s view, was as follows:
- “Each in her own way is lovable; whichever one he is drawn to in the mood of the moment, she alone is lovable.”
- — Johann Goethe (1808), “Notes on The Renouncer”, Jun
This draft stage story, however, stalled out, as presumably, Goethe had to have the hero decide, according to a logical and principle manner, how to "choose" who to make a child with or to marry, or something along these lines.
Goethe took it up again early the next year, after which the tale ballooned into a novel, progressed quickly, and before the end of the year (Oct 3, 1809) (see: Goethe timeline) it was in print under the enigmatic title Elective Affinities, a physical chemistry based treatise on love, relationships, and human interactions viewed purely as affinity reactions or chemical reactions. The result was the "Goethe model", wherein "will" becomes a function of the forces of the chemical affinities.
These "forces" were later determined to the "electromagnetic forces" (Maxwell, 1861) and the measure of the chemical affinities, were later found to be measurable by the "free energies" (Helmholtz, 1882) of the reaction.
Froude model (1849)
In 1849, James Froude, in his The Nemesis of Faith, building on the Goethe model, digressed in a physical sense on the "morality" and "will" and how the will of a thing can be changed by external circumstances, such as when a magnet is heated, and this heat thus changes the electron orientations in the magnet, which thus results to change the correlating "will" of a nearby swinging ball of steel:
“The source of all superstition is the fear of having offended god, the sense of something within ourselves which we call sin. Sin, in its popular and therefore most substantial sense, means the having done something to gratify ourselves which we knew, or might have known, was displeasing to god. It depends, therefore, for its essence on the doer having had the power of acting otherwise than he did. When there is no such power there is no sin.
Now let us examine this. In reflecting upon our own actions we find that they arise from the determination of our will, as we call the ultimate moral principle of action, upon some object. When we will, we will something, not nothing. Objects attract or repel the will by the appearance of something in themselves either desirable or undesirable. And in every action, if analyzed, the will is found to have been determined by the presence of the greatest degree of desirableness on the side towards which it has been determined.
It is alike self-contradictory and contrary to experience, that a man of two goods should choose the lesser, knowing it at the time to be the lesser. Observe, I say, at the time of action. We are complex, and therefore, in our natural state, inconsistent, beings, and the opinion of this hour need not be the opinion of the next. It may be different before the temptation appear; it may return to be different after the temptation is passed; the nearness or distance of objects may alter their relative magnitude, or appetite or passion may obscure the reflecting power, and give a temporary impulsive force to a particular side of our nature.
But, uniformly, given a particular condition of a man's nature, and given a number of possible courses, his action is as necessarily determined into the course best corresponding to that condition, as a bar of steel suspended between two magnets is determined towards the most powerful. It may go reluctantly, for it will still feel the attraction of the weaker magnet, but it will still obey the strongest, and must obey. What we call knowing a man's character, is knowing how he will act in such and such conditions. The better we know him the more surely we can prophesy. If we know him perfectly, we are certain.
So that it appears that at the stage first removed from the action, we cannot find what we called the necessary condition of sin. It is not there; and we must look for it a step higher among the causes which determine the conditions under which the man acts. Here we find the power of motives depends on the character, or the want of character. If no character be formed, they will influence according to the temporary preponderance of this or that part of the nature; if there be formed character, on the conditions, again, which have formed it, on past habits, and therefore on past actions. Go back, therefore, upon these, and we are again in the same way referred higher and still higher, until we arrive at the first condition, the natural powers and faculties with which the man has been sent into the world.
Therefore, while we find such endless differences between the actions of different men under the same temptations, or of the same man at different times, we shall yet be unable to find any link of the chain undetermined by the action of the outward circumstance on the inner law; or any point where we can say a power lay in the individual will of choosing either of two courses—in other words, to discover sin. Actions are governed by motives. The power of motives depends on character, and character on the original faculties and the training which they have received from the men or things among which they have been bred.
Sin, therefore, as commonly understood, is a chimera.
If you ask me why, then, conscience so imperatively declares that it is real? I answer, conscience declares nothing of the kind. We are conscious simply of what we do, and of what is done to us. The judgment may come in to pass sentence; but the judgment is formed on instruction and experience, and may be as wrong in this matter as in any other: being trained in the ordinary theory of morals, it will and must judge according to it; but it does not follow that it must be right, any more than if it be trained in a particular theory of politics, and judges according to that, it must be right. Men obey an appetite under present temptation, to obey which they have before learned will be injurious to them, and which, after the indulgence, they again learn has been injurious to them; but which, at the time, they either expected would, in their case, remit its natural penalty, or else, about which, being blinded by their feelings, they never thought at all. Looking back on their past state of mind, and finding it the same as that to which they have returned when the passions have ceased to work, it seems to them that they knew better, and might have done otherwise. They wish they had. They feel they have hurt themselves, and imagine they have broken a law. It is true they have broken the higher law, but not in the way which they fancy, but by obeying the lower law, which at the time was the stronger.
Our instinct has outrun our theory in this matter; for while we still insist upon free will and sin, we make allowance for individuals who have gone wrong, on the very ground of provocation, of temptation, of bad education, of infirm character. By and by philosophy will follow, and so at last we may hope for a true theory of morals. It is curious to watch, in the history of religious beliefs, the gradual elimination of this monster of moral evil. The first state of mankind is the unreflecting state. The nature is undeveloped, looking neither before nor after; it acts on the impulse of the moment, and is troubled with no weary retrospect, nor with any notions of a remote future which present conduct can affect; and knowing neither good nor evil, better or worse, it does simply what it desires, and is happy in it. It is the state analogous to the early childhood of each of us, and is represented in the common theory of paradise—the state of innocence.
But men had to grow as we grew. Their passions developed rapidly, their minds slowly; but fast enough to allow them, in the interval of passion, to reflect upon themselves, to generalise, and form experience; and, acquiring thus rudimental notions of laws from observing the tendency of actions, men went through what is called the "fall"; and obtained that knowledge of good and evil which Schiller calls "ein Kiesen Schritt der Menscheit" ["a gravel step of humanity"]. Feeling instinctively that the laws under which they were, were not made by themselves, but that a power was round and over them greater than themselves, they formed the notion of a lawgiver [see: Critias hypothesis], whom they conceived they could please by obedience to the best they knew, and make angry by following the worse. It is an old remark, that as men are, such they paint their gods; and as in themselves the passionate, or demonic nature, long preponderated, so the gods they worshiped were demons like themselves, jealous, capricious, exacting, revengeful, the figures, which fill the old mythologies, and appear partly in the Old Testament. They feared them as they feared the powerful of their own race, and sought to propitiate them by similar offerings and services.”
Electromagnetic force (1861)
In 1861, James Maxwell derived the equations behind the electromagnetic force. The following shows the basic structure of the electromagnetic force, comprised of a magnetic field B and an electric field E, each moving perpendicular to each other, through space or spacetime:
In 1878, Maxwell, in his last year of existence, while "dying" from the same disease his mother died from at the same age, stated the following discerning remarks about will and waves:
- “We, that is, all the ‘work we’ve done’, as ‘waves in aether’, shall for ever run. In swift expanding spheres, through heavens beyond the sun.”
- “I cannot help thinking about the immediate circumstances which have brought a thing to pass, rather than about any ‘will’ setting them in motion. What is done by what is called my ‘self’ is, I feel, done by something greater than myself in me.”
Maxwell, in other words, here, says that he did not believe in any "will", let alone any "free will" setting his actions in motion, but rather that we are atomic and molecular things that do work as "waves in ether". In modern terms, as either has been replaced with spacetime, we are molecular geometries that do electromagnetic forced work as waves in spacetime.
Bohr model (1913)
This is called the "Bohr model, developed by Neils Bohr in 1913, of an atom showing a photon absorbing into an electron, causing it to go up ↑ in orbital position, and photon emitting from an electron causing it to go down ↓ in orbital position.
In 1958, George Wald, an American chemist, outlined the visual cycle of the mechanism of retinal molecule, which is located in the retina of the human eye, and is part of the vision process of allowing humans to "see" things.
The following shows an animation of retinal going from the bent configuration (11-cis retinal) to the straightened configuration (all-trans retinal) when a certain electromagnetic force wavelength of light shines on the "C10-C11 portion", aka the mind, of the molecule, thereby causing an electron, in one of the C10 or C11 carbon atoms, to jump up in orbitals:
This causes the molecule as whole to move into the straightened configuration, so to re-establish a stable proton-electron geometry.
Libet experiment (1982)
In 1982, Benjamin Libet, an American neuroscientist, in which the time of onset of “electrical activity” in the cerebrum, the instance of the so-called or readiness potential, of six college students, was measured against the “reported time” of the appearance of the subjective experience of “wanting” or intending to act, with regard to the specific action of choosing to press a button at a specific instance in time. A three step summary of Libet's 1983 study are shown below:
which finds a three step time demarcated (delayed) mechanism involved in the so-called conscious action of "choice" to perform an "action", both of which being preceded by an unconscious readiness potential change in the matter of the brain; the time of the readiness potential, in turn, preceded by electromagnetic sensory perception input (not part of the experiment).
The Libet experiment proved, in other words, that what see perceive as willed "choice", is a secondhand result of an electromagnetic state of activity in the mind, which preceded the choice.
Will | Implications
When one begins to entertain the "Goethe model", as James Froude (1854) did, discussed above, the question of "free will?" often arises, as this has been a staple belief, culturally, historically, and religiously, a theory dating back to the Egyptians and their "ba" model of the soul, which became the Christian model of a person freely "choosing" right from wrong. The following polling results gives an idea of the predominance of belief in free will:
- “In the US, the majority did believe in free will (82.33%), and only a minority believed in determinism (30.77%). A vast majority of subjects also believed in dualism (75.77%).”
- — David Wisniewski (2019), “Free will beliefs are better predicted by dualism than determinism beliefs across different cultures”
The long and the short of the new "electromagnetic force" model of the "will", is that even though the movements of the body are "determined" by a summation of the antecedent forces, that act on the hydrocarbon portion of the mind, where the "feeling" of the conscious "choice" occurs, similar to the way the retinal molecule is "forced" to straighten, or similar to the way that the gravitational force "determines" the movement of the earth about the sun, owing to the curvature of spacetime, the "feeling" will still be real.
Hence, once can still "feel" actions that are in accordance with their "will" or actions that feel "right", even though the mechanisms of the universe, as we understand things, are determined on the grand scale of things. Hence, one can use their "feelings", in the sense of "feeling the force", to guide their bodies through the universe. These "wills", however, will still derive from the electromagnetic force, which originated outside of the mind. This was famously stated by Schopenhauer as such:
- “Man can do what he will, but he cannot will what he wills.”
- — Arthur Schopenhauer (1839), On the Freedom of the Will (pg. 45-46)
The recent Netflix series Dark attempted to tell a story along the lines of the Schopenhauerian view of things; the series was not perfectly great, but it does outline some of the issues that the average person might grapple with when broaching the past the simplistic free will model of things.
When a person is forced to do something "against their will", then the movement is said to be unfavorable. If these against will type of movements become reactions, such as "forced marriage", then the reaction is defined as endergonic, i.e. unnatural.
When a person does something in "alignment with their will", then the movement is said to be favorable. If these "with will" type of movements become reactions, such as "love at first sight marriage", then the reaction is defined as exergonic, i.e. natural.
Will | Coupling
When various conflicting "wills" are mixed together, such as in a society, a process called "coupling" occurs, wherein exergonic reactions and processes drive endergonic processes and reactions. This was worked out by Fritz Lipmann at the cellular level in 1941. This has only been partially worked out at the social level.
The following are related quotes:
- “The solution of mind is certainly in the magnet.”
- ABC model – Hmolpedia 2020.
- A Paradoxical Ode – Hmolpedia 2020.
- (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry, Volume One (pg. 198). LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry, Volume Two. LuLu.
(c) Thims, Libb. (2008). The Human Molecule (GB) (Amz) (Iss) (pgs. 60-61). LuLu.
- Goethe love thought experiment – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Froude, James. (1849). The Nemesis of Faith (pgs. 90-95). Chapman.
- Hmolpedia 2020
- Fenton Hort – Wikipedia.
- (a) Hort, Fenton J.A. (1882). “Letter to Lewis Campbell”, Feb 4.
(b) Campbell, Lewis and Garnett, William. (1882). The Life of James Clerk Maxwell: with Selections from His Correspondence and Occasional Writings (pg. 421). MacMillan and Co, 1884.
(c) Anon. (1888). “Review: Natural Causation by C.E. Plumptre”, Journal of Education (pg. 479), Oct 1.
(d) Nørretranders, Tor. (1991). The User Illusion: Cutting Conscious Down to Size (Mærk verden) (pg. v). Publisher: A. Lane, 1998.
(e) Seitz, Frederick. (2001). “James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879); Member APS 1875” (pdf) (pg. 1; [n. 2, pg. 421]), Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 145(1):1-45, Mar.
(f) Flood, Raymond, McCartney, Mark, and Whitaker, Andrew. (2014). James Clerk Maxwell: Perspectives on His Life and Work (pg. 283). Oxford University Press.
- Libet experiment – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Wisniewski, David. (2019). “Free will beliefs are better predicted by dualism than determinism beliefs across different cultures” (co-authors: Robert Deutschlander and John Haynes) (Ѻ), PLOS One, Sep 11.
- Coupling – Hmolpedia 2020.
- (a) Adams, Henry. (1908). “Letter to Charles Gaskell”, Sep 27.
(b) Adams, Henry. (1992). Henry Adams: Selected Letters (editor: Ernest Samuels) (pg. 505). Harvard.