A simpler explanation of free will.

[Kharakov]

Perhaps you think that it is obvious how QM leads to 'freedom'; perhaps you simply are making the error of thinking that 'random' and 'free' are the same thing (Hint: they are not).

What you are NOT doing is explaining why you think that 'QM gives "I" the property of freedom', or why anyone else should consider this anything other than an empty assertion.

It's obvious. Ryan and Togo's brains (well, any of the quantum free woo having beings) achieve states of perfect balance of forces, so that when they make a decision there is no impetus one way or another. Even when they think, their minds are completely balanced, not leaning towards one thing or another, but instead being completely centered, and able to pick which side of the hill to roll down, because there is no impetus towards one choice or another.

They don't have neural structures that cause them to prefer one path over another. They just select freely from the options their brain presents to them in a perfectly balanced way, without any leaning towards one thing over another, without any impetus to decide, or desires to fulfill.

 

[DBT]

Now we are back to what I was saying over and over again was making me crazy. You keep forgetting that the QM is a part of "I". In my argument, the QM gives "I" the property of freedom.

I haven't forgotten. You are still equating randomness - which is not subject to the regulative control of will, desire, wants, wishes or self - with freedom. Plus QM does what it does regardless of your desires, wants, wishes or self - so according to your model, your ''I'' is the puppet of QM, dancing to the tune of randomness and rationalizing it as freedom. As a model for free will, it doesn't work.

 

[fromderinside]

Now, if QM is determined, I will concede. There is an obvious condition in my argument that QM must be undetermined.

That what we can't measure or see 'acts' probabilistically is assured by the fact that it can't be other than seen in populations of outcomes. The point that these population reports average out to deterministic macro events should be proof enough that the calculus for the very tiny produces results in concert with the large. The theory is about calculus of tiny steps and interceding steps between products producing accurate statements. Try interpolating a measure on a slide rule some time to determine whether an average (several interpolations) produces a result consistent with a determination.

That the tactic may not be ruled by determinism is not evidence the method is not producing deterministic results.

Ryan its time to concede.

 

[ryan]

You still seem to be confused about what I mean by "assumption". The reason why I say this is because your issue is not with any of my assumptions; rather, it's with my positive claim. Put differently, your issue is with the implication of my assumptions.

Your contention is wrong for the basic reason that any form of random quantum interference within the system is not under the regulative control of 'you' as a conscious entity (also being shaped and formed by neural activity) nor neural networks as they perform their information processing activity which shapes and forms both the experience of you as a conscious entity along with your thoughts feelings, decisions and actions...which is not quantum randomness.

Now we are back to what I was saying over and over again was making me crazy. You keep forgetting that the QM is a part of "I". In my argument, the QM gives "I" the property of freedom.

Except that you don't have an argument; you just keep asserting that 'QM gives "I" the property of freedom' without any explanation of how that could possibly be true.

My pineal gland is a part of "I". If I say 'The pineal gland gives "I" the property of freedom', then that would be a bald assertion, requiring some more detail on at least one plausible mechanism for this to occur to back it up.

Perhaps you think that it is obvious how QM leads to 'freedom'; perhaps you simply are making the error of thinking that 'random' and 'free' are the same thing (Hint: they are not).

My head is going to explode. I have explained this many times, and I am quite sure that I explained it to you at least a couple times. Do you want me to attach everything that I have ever said on every new post?

And after 100's of posts you call my assertion empty. Call it false, weak or even stupid if you must, but for the love of sweet logic don't call it empty.

 

[Togo]

Now we are back to what I was saying over and over again was making me crazy. You keep forgetting that the QM is a part of "I". In my argument, the QM gives "I" the property of freedom.

Except that you don't have an argument; you just keep asserting that 'QM gives "I" the property of freedom' without any explanation of how that could possibly be true.

My pineal gland is a part of "I". If I say 'The pineal gland gives "I" the property of freedom', then that would be a bald assertion, requiring some more detail on at least one plausible mechanism for this to occur to back it up.

Perhaps you think that it is obvious how QM leads to 'freedom'; perhaps you simply are making the error of thinking that 'random' and 'free' are the same thing (Hint: they are not).

What you are NOT doing is explaining why you think that 'QM gives "I" the property of freedom', or why anyone else should consider this anything other than an empty assertion.

I think the point is that 'random' is a label we put on it. Ryan's using 'random' where I would use 'undetermined', and arguing that free will would appear random to a determined model. So for free will he's proposing a possible mechanism for input that's known to be not determined.

I haven't forgotten. You are still equating randomness - which is not subject to the regulative control of will, desire, wants, wishes or self - with freedom.

Well sort of. He's equating free will with 'things that can be demonstrated to be non-deterministic'. It's not a water tight case, but it's the mirror of part of your own case - that free will is impossible because the brain is determined.

Plus QM does what it does regardless of your desires, wants, wishes or self - so according to your model, your ''I'' is the puppet of QM,

No, according to his model Free will is a subset of QM activity in the brain. They aren't separate, one doesn't drive the other.

 

[ryan]

Now we are back to what I was saying over and over again was making me crazy. You keep forgetting that the QM is a part of "I". In my argument, the QM gives "I" the property of freedom.

I haven't forgotten. You are still equating randomness - which is not subject to the regulative control of will, desire, wants, wishes or self - with freedom. Plus QM does what it does regardless of your desires, wants, wishes or self - so according to your model, your ''I'' is the puppet of QM, dancing to the tune of randomness and rationalizing it as freedom. As a model for free will, it doesn't work.

You know that I answered this many times. Every time I answer it you do not rebut or comment on it.

My answer is the same as it has always been. A particle may be free to go wherever it has a probability greater than 0. This assumes a truly random behaviour.

Ultimately the freedom (microtubules) is in "I", specifically the decision-making process, then "I" has freedom, specifically my decisions have freedom.

 

[ryan]

Now, if QM is determined, I will concede. There is an obvious condition in my argument that QM must be undetermined.

That what we can't measure or see 'acts' probabilistically is assured by the fact that it can't be other than seen in populations of outcomes. The point that these population reports average out to deterministic macro events should be proof enough that the calculus for the very tiny produces results in concert with the large. The theory is about calculus of tiny steps and interceding steps between products producing accurate statements. Try interpolating a measure on a slide rule some time to determine whether an average (several interpolations) produces a result consistent with a determination.

That the tactic may not be ruled by determinism is not evidence the method is not producing deterministic results.

Ryan its time to concede.

This is crazy. You seem to be saying that just because the collective/whole exhibits some property the individual parts must have the same property. That's like saying that all colors are white because their combined properties exhibit white.

 

[Kharakov]

But that math is also used to model QM, sooooo ...

I like the way you said that.

I don't disagree that QM processes play some sort of role in brain function, I just don't think the role is non-deterministic nor do I think that it is non-conscious.

So your issue is that QM is deterministic. Well, my argument must assume pure randomness at the level of QM or below. Until they find this deterministic bottom, I feel like the assumption is not a very big stretch.

It's a huge stretch- everything you see is deterministic until you break things down to a certain level at which spacetime perturbations play a great role (anything with sufficient momentum (classic level) is not going to be greatly affected by spacetime perturbations).

One will never able to be use purely local measurements (quantum mechanical measurements) in smooth spacetime to predict the evolution of a system that is influenced by smooth, non local spacetime.

I do not understand what you mean when you say that you don't think the QM role is "non-conscious". Who is saying that it must be conscious?

I think there is some form of consciousness at the bottom, as well as the top of the hierarchy.

 

[ryan]

I like the way you said that.

Don't be sidetracked by my amazing creative writing; instead, focus on what I said.

So your issue is that QM is deterministic. Well, my argument must assume pure randomness at the level of QM or below. Until they find this deterministic bottom, I feel like the assumption is not a very big stretch.

It's a huge stretch- everything you see is deterministic until you break things down to a certain level at which spacetime perturbations play a great role (anything with sufficient momentum (classic level) is not going to be greatly affected by spacetime perturbations).

But I am not talking about classical mechanics. Neurological processes in the brain are sensitive enough to be affected by the so called quantum vibrations in microtubules. Moreover, I posted some time ago the evidence that microtubules are information carriers. Check them out on YouTube; they are extremely chaotic and small. QM affects them and they would in turn affect information processes.

I do not understand what you mean when you say that you don't think the QM role is "non-conscious". Who is saying that it must be conscious?

I think there is some form of consciousness at the bottom, as well as the top of the hierarchy.

I don't know what to say about this.

Maybe start a thread. I am sure it will receive much attention.

 

[Kharakov]

Don't be sidetracked by my amazing creative writing; instead, focus on what I said.

I can't help it. Your prose gets in my head, and then my microtubules get all stuffed with it, and I find it hard to think freely.

So your issue is that QM is deterministic. Well, my argument must assume pure randomness at the level of QM or below. Until they find this deterministic bottom, I feel like the assumption is not a very big stretch.

It's a huge stretch- everything you see is deterministic until you break things down to a certain level at which spacetime perturbations play a great role (anything with sufficient momentum (classic level) is not going to be greatly affected by spacetime perturbations).

But I am not talking about classical mechanics. Neurological processes in the brain are sensitive enough to be affected by the so called quantum vibrations in microtubules. Moreover, I posted some time ago the evidence that microtubules are information carriers. Check them out on YouTube; they are extremely chaotic and small. QM affects them and they would in turn affect information processes.

Yeah. I'm not too thrilled about what I've read about  orchestrated objective reduction. Also, one of the main points of QM is that many objects acting together (as one) sort of behave classically. If you have a bunch of objects behaving as a baseball, you're going to have classical behavior.

Even if there are quantum effects, in which we decide one thing or another based on what we believe will occur based on our past experiences, we're still being determined by our past experiences. Maybe not every possible combination of matter has been formed yet, but we've experienced a few, and we know a few things to pick from. Determinism frees us by allowing us to replicate good experiences. If things were truly random, well, nothing we did would really matter.

 

[DBT]

I haven't forgotten. You are still equating randomness - which is not subject to the regulative control of will, desire, wants, wishes or self - with freedom. Plus QM does what it does regardless of your desires, wants, wishes or self - so according to your model, your ''I'' is the puppet of QM, dancing to the tune of randomness and rationalizing it as freedom. As a model for free will, it doesn't work.

You know that I answered this many times. Every time I answer it you do not rebut or comment on it.

I have been rebutting your claim from the very start. As have several other posters. But rather than seriously considering what we have been pointing out to you in regard to the flaws in your proposition and definition you just repeat that you 'have answered it'

My answer is the same as it has always been. A particle may be free to go wherever it has a probability greater than 0. This assumes a truly random behaviour.

Ultimately the freedom (microtubules) is in "I", specifically the decision-making process, then "I" has freedom, specifically my decisions have freedom.

Which is no answer at all. You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not freedom in the sense of being able to do whatever you like...which is one definition of free will, albeit flawed.

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions. The brain cannot predict or use a random quantum event to its advantage, by the very token that it is random and unpredictable.

But you always brush this aside and make the same claim over and over without regard for the fact that it is fatally flawed.

 

[DBT]

No, according to his model Free will is a subset of QM activity in the brain. They aren't separate, one doesn't drive the other.

You really need to read more carefully. And stop putting your own twisted interpretation into whatever is said because it doesn't suit your beliefs.

 

[ryan]

I can't help it. Your prose gets in my head, and then my microtubules get all stuffed with it, and I find it hard to think freely.

So your issue is that QM is deterministic. Well, my argument must assume pure randomness at the level of QM or below. Until they find this deterministic bottom, I feel like the assumption is not a very big stretch.

It's a huge stretch- everything you see is deterministic until you break things down to a certain level at which spacetime perturbations play a great role (anything with sufficient momentum (classic level) is not going to be greatly affected by spacetime perturbations).

But I am not talking about classical mechanics. Neurological processes in the brain are sensitive enough to be affected by the so called quantum vibrations in microtubules. Moreover, I posted some time ago the evidence that microtubules are information carriers. Check them out on YouTube; they are extremely chaotic and small. QM affects them and they would in turn affect information processes.

Yeah. I'm not too thrilled about what I've read about  orchestrated objective reduction. Also, one of the main points of QM is that many objects acting together (as one) sort of behave classically. If you have a bunch of objects behaving as a baseball, you're going to have classical behavior.

Even if there are quantum effects, in which we decide one thing or another based on what we believe will occur based on our past experiences, we're still being determined by our past experiences. Maybe not every possible combination of matter has been formed yet, but we've experienced a few, and we know a few things to pick from. Determinism frees us by allowing us to replicate good experiences. If things were truly random, well, nothing we did would really matter.

We have a sprinkle of randomness so that we might do right instead of doing wrong. Many times people think they are doing the right thing when it is wrong and vice-versa. The randomness is a healthy variety of choices. And thank the universe for morals and ethics; these are what free will is all about.

 

[ryan]

You know that I answered this many times. Every time I answer it you do not rebut or comment on it.

I have been rebutting your claim from the very start. As have several other posters. But rather than seriously considering what we have been pointing out to you in regard to the flaws in your proposition and definition you just repeat that you 'have answered it'

My answer is the same as it has always been. A particle may be free to go wherever it has a probability greater than 0. This assumes a truly random behaviour.

Ultimately the freedom (microtubules) is in "I", specifically the decision-making process, then "I" has freedom, specifically my decisions have freedom.

Which is no answer at all. You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not freedom in the sense of being able to do whatever you like...which is one definition of free will, albeit flawed.

Where did you get that definition? I don't think proponents for free will have "do whatever you like" in mind.

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions.

I agree (well, unless you choose to make choices based on flipping a coin or something). But you have what I am saying backwards. I am saying that the choice is random.

The brain cannot predict or use a random quantum event to its advantage, by the very token that it is random and unpredictable.

S - I - G - H !!!! We are back here? We are hardwired for very clear decisions but not for the tough/close decisions that have to do with morals, preferences, dilemmas, or just unimportant decisions that are not necessarily going to affect our survival .

But you always brush this aside and make the same claim over and over without regard for the fact that it is fatally flawed.

I am the one who always answers everything you post. You always skip things in my posts, but everything I post is actually for a reason. That's why it is so frustrating when you continually bring up side arguments that I already dealt with, rightly or wrongly. I am willing to see all side arguments through, but you were disconnecting them. That is why I keep telling you that I answered you - because I truly did - but I get no response.

Sometimes when you skip parts of my post, I think that you are conceding to that part of the argument. It would save us a lot of time if we just saw everything through.

I remember a few weeks ago I did it to you just to see if you would care, but you didn't even notice! You must stop discontinuing these side/supplementary arguments.

 

[Juma]

We have a sprinkle of randomness so that we might do right instead of doing wrong. Many times people think they are doing the right thing when it is wrong and vice-versa. The randomness is a healthy variety of choices. And thank the universe for morals and ethics; these are what free will is all about.

This was a new record in pseudobabble.

Wait 24 hour. Read your post again when your are not sleepdeprived/high/drunk.

 

[DBT]

I have been rebutting your claim from the very start. As have several other posters. But rather than seriously considering what we have been pointing out to you in regard to the flaws in your proposition and definition you just repeat that you 'have answered it'

My answer is the same as it has always been. A particle may be free to go wherever it has a probability greater than 0. This assumes a truly random behaviour.

Ultimately the freedom (microtubules) is in "I", specifically the decision-making process, then "I" has freedom, specifically my decisions have freedom.

Which is no answer at all. You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not freedom in the sense of being able to do whatever you like...which is one definition of free will, albeit flawed.

Where did you get that definition? I don't think proponents for free will have "do whatever you like" in mind.

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions.

I agree (well, unless you choose to make choices based on flipping a coin or something). But you have what I am saying backwards. I am saying that the choice is random.

The brain cannot predict or use a random quantum event to its advantage, by the very token that it is random and unpredictable.

S - I - G - H !!!! We are back here? We are hardwired for very clear decisions but not for the tough/close decisions that have to do with morals, preferences, dilemmas, or just unimportant decisions that are not necessarily going to affect our survival .

But you always brush this aside and make the same claim over and over without regard for the fact that it is fatally flawed.

I am the one who always answers everything you post. You always skip things in my posts, but everything I post is actually for a reason. That's why it is so frustrating when you continually bring up side arguments that I already dealt with, rightly or wrongly. I am willing to see all side arguments through, but you were disconnecting them. That is why I keep telling you that I answered you - because I truly did - but I get no response.

Sometimes when you skip parts of my post, I think that you are conceding to that part of the argument. It would save us a lot of time if we just saw everything through.

I remember a few weeks ago I did it to you just to see if you would care, but you didn't even notice! You must stop discontinuing these side/supplementary arguments.

Sign if you like, but the problem lies in an apparent inability to understand the implications of your own claim.

You persistently ignore the fatal points of your claim;

You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not ''freedom.''

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions.

The brain cannot predict or use a random quantum event to its advantage, by the very token that it is random and unpredictable.

You equate randomness - which is not subject to the regulative control of will, desire, wants, wishes or self - with freedom. Plus QM does what it does regardless of your desires, wants, wishes or self - so according to your model, your ''I'' is the puppet of QM, dancing to the tune of randomness and rationalizing it as freedom. As a model for free will, it doesn't work.


Your contention is wrong for the basic reason that any form of random quantum interference within the system is not under the regulative control of 'you' as a conscious entity (also being shaped and formed by neural activity) nor neural networks as they perform their information processing activity which shapes and forms both the experience of you as a conscious entity along with your thoughts feelings, decisions and actions...which is not a matter of quantum randomness but macro scale physics and information processing.

So, ryan, the best option is to gracefully concede that your attempt to rationalize 'free will' has failed.

 

[ryan]

Sign if you like, but the problem lies in an apparent inability to understand the implications of your own claim.

You persistently ignore the fatal points of your claim;

You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not ''freedom.''

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions.

You just ignored my comment to this exact same point you made in your last post (post #71). How do you expect to convince me of anything if you ignore what I say? How do you even expect us to get anywhere?

I don't even want to continue this until you argue properly.

 

[Kharakov]

Here bud.

 

[ryan]

Why did you post these videos? People might see you as a trader to their cult.

 

[DBT]

Sign if you like, but the problem lies in an apparent inability to understand the implications of your own claim.

You persistently ignore the fatal points of your claim;

You simply equate randomness with 'freedom' without regard that randomness is not ''freedom.''

Randomness is not chosen or utilized in order to make rational decisions.

You just ignored my comment to this exact same point you made in your last post (post #71). How do you expect to convince me of anything if you ignore what I say? How do you even expect us to get anywhere?

I don't even want to continue this until you argue properly.

That remark is quite funny, given that you have offered no argument of your own. Your comments - ''A particle may be free to go wherever it has a probability greater than 0. This assumes a truly random behaviour.

Ultimately the freedom (microtubules) is in "I", specifically the decision-making process, then "I" has freedom, specifically my decisions have freedom.'' - are, for the given reasons, quite meaningless.

Your comments are nothing more than baseless assertions, equivocating freedom with randomness when there is no relationship between randomness and freedom. Randomness imposing on a system and altering it in non chosen and non willed ways being freely willed or chosen.

The proposition not only fails, but is quite absurd....sorry to say.