Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

So you admit that your theory violates the Schrödinger equation and still holds on to it without a shred of evidens...

I don't want to get into this with you because you muddy the water with notions of dualism. I admit that I do not have a scientific explanation when dualism is involved. The particles and the curve are not there, only particles.

I do not bring up dualism, I simply show your mistakes. Why cant you reply to what I actually write instead of trying to change the subject?

 

[DBT]

Going directly to the chase.

.... I can't move my finger at "will".

As you wrote, you can't will your finger to move. For one's 'will' to do so would mean that self same 'will' organize the muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, etc., in the local area the finger to move in a particular way. Most of those components are trained through practice and maturation to some number of coordinated operations over time.

The 'will', given conditions are proper might select one of these operations. But the particular operation would conform to existing situations in which the finger and the hand find themselves. So its not willing the finger to move that would be a demonstration of will. It must, to be will, be an explicit and exact finger movement for such an activity to have any hope of being determined to be and act 'of free will'.

So no, you can't say I can move my finger at 'will'. You can't because it's nearly impossible to set up conditions whereby such an action would be a clear demonstration of anything resembling 'free will'.

Well put. Of course this has to be ignored or brushed aside by members of the opposition in order to maintain their faith in some vague concept of free will that they themselves can't explain coherently....hence the mantra chant of 'I can move my finger at will' I can move my finger at will, I can.....''

 

[DBT]

I post 'this type of post' in response to what you prompt, whether consciously or unconsciously, when you say: ''the reason why this is a very tough argument for you to win is because of your certainty on such an uncertain subject'' - ryan - which is an assumption you have made.

First of all, the Schrodinger equation can only determine the probability of a particle being in a specific location. Second, the SE is only a mathematical model of reality which may or may not be correct. Chances are the SE will need to be corrected like with all other mathematical models that exist.

The whole point of bringing up Schrodinger's equation was to show that Schrodinger equation relates to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle and has nothing to do with human decision making and behaviour. That using QM as the basis of an argument for free will is a mistake.

Now, please answer this question that I asked a few posts ago. Do you believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

I've been answering that question throughout this thread and numerous others. Brain forms, shapes and generates consciousness/mind as a means of negotiating the external world. Consciousness does not exist without the information being fed into its 'work space' - so it is the brain that makes decisions, some of which are represented in conscious form while others are performed unconsciously.

 

[ryan]

I don't want to get into this with you because you muddy the water with notions of dualism. I admit that I do not have a scientific explanation when dualism is involved. The particles and the curve are not there, only particles.

I do not bring up dualism, I simply show your mistakes. Why cant you reply to what I actually write instead of trying to change the subject?

Fine, then jump in in my next post to DBT. There is no point making the same argument twice.

 

[ryan]

First of all, the Schrodinger equation can only determine the probability of a particle being in a specific location. Second, the SE is only a mathematical model of reality which may or may not be correct. Chances are the SE will need to be corrected like with all other mathematical models that exist.

The whole point of bringing up Schrodinger's equation was to show that Schrodinger equation relates to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle and has nothing to do with human decision making and behaviour. That using QM as the basis of an argument for free will is a mistake.

But SE only determines a probability value.

And it's only a mathematical explanation. It doesn't explain how a particle gets to a position.

One thing I found interesting about QM is that the wave property of it is not only a wave property in terms of fluid dynamics from classical physics; it's also a wave of probability.

Now, please answer this question that I asked a few posts ago. Do you believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

I've been answering that question throughout this thread and numerous others. Brain forms, shapes and generates consciousness/mind as a means of negotiating the external world. Consciousness does not exist without the information being fed into its 'work space' - so it is the brain that makes decisions, some of which are represented in conscious form while others are performed unconsciously.

That would be all well and fine if there were only classical mechanics at work here. But the history of the brain function in a certain moment does not totally set the stage for the consciousness. QM provides a chance for the consciousness to deviate from the path it was on.

So now we know that the consciousness makes choices and has some physical freedom. The agent confirms that the action was in agreement with the choice it made. I also want to add that the consciousness and I are the same thing. So I made a choice that could have been different.

 

[Juma]

I do not bring up dualism, I simply show your mistakes. Why cant you reply to what I actually write instead of trying to change the subject?

Fine, then jump in in my next post to DBT. There is no point making the same argument twice.

I see no response to my point there.
Stop dodging.

 

[ryan]

Fine, then jump in in my next post to DBT. There is no point making the same argument twice.

I see no response to my point there.
Stop dodging.

So if the Schrodinger equation says that I have a, say, 80% chance of choosing X, I still may not choose X. I still have freedom.

 

[DBT]

Schrodinger equation cannot predict brain states, how the brain makes decisions or the decisions that may be made. Someone may be drunk or under the influence of drugs, therefore the brain may make decisions it wouldn't have made when not in that state. Also connectivity decline, structural damage, etc.

 

[Juma]

I see no response to my point there.
Stop dodging.

So if the Schrodinger equation says that I have a, say, 80% chance of choosing X, I still may not choose X. I still have freedom.

No. As I have told you several times: steering how the wave collapses would violate the SE. Having no control is not free will.

 

[untermensche]

You don't have a clue how the experience is created or what experience is in terms of brain activity.

Another ignorant remark. I have repeatedly said that it is not known how the brain forms its internal experience of the world in the form of conscious mind, but it is quite clear that it is the brain that is forming an experience of mind and self.

This is for all practical purposes is accepted by neuroscientists and researchers of other fields, evolutionary psychology, etc.

More than enough evidence showing that it is indeed the state and condition of the brain in any given instance that determines the state of its mind has been provided, yet you refuse to consider anything that contravenes your unfounded belief in an inexplicable and irrational autonomy of mind, which you have been asked to explain, but instead repeat your mantra ''I can move my finger at will'' - never mind that you didn't choose or generate your will consciously or have access to the initiation of the motor action...which, according to the available evidence, was set into motion milliseconds before conscious awareness.

You don't know any important things to know. Like what consciousness is or how it works. Like what any brain activity is actually doing.

You are like the person with a radio explaining how it works by saying "electricity" is doing it. "Brain activity is doing it".

You see activity and invent absurd stories about it. You don't explain it or explain anything.

You haven't demonstrated I can't move my finger at "will" because you have not demonstrated anything. You have not shown you understand one thing about brain activity and what that activity means to a brain.

You have merely pointed to brain activity as a child points to a cow.

The fact that you think you can surmount a clear observation that the finger moves when I "will" it with your absurd stories about things you do not understand is amazing.

You keep saying "It is in the research" then point to research that explains nothing.

I await the first thing you have said that anybody should take seriously.

It is not pathetic that so-called "cognitive sciences" that doesn't have a clue what cognition is, has explained so little. What is pathetic are the people who believe it has explained everything.

 

[fromderinside]

So a deciding mind goes to the wishing well after it decides to wish something might happen? Novel to say the least.

A "mind" does not have to go anywhere to "will" a finger to move.

Really? You are either saying that a process for executing comes with every decision or that 'choice' is nothing more than a way point in a process.

 

[fromderinside]

It is not pathetic that so-called "cognitive sciences" that doesn't have a clue what cognition is, has explained so little. What is pathetic are the people who believe it has explained everything.

First I'm going to agree that cognitive science hasn't done much in the way of ground breaking theory and discovery. Then I'm going show you that that petard is your way of thinking. Knowledge doesn't come from speculating on the rings of Saturn or by dropping microphones into Manhattan.. It comes from manipulating actual material things. The only reliable way that works for the brain is to examine interactions from synapse to synapse as do physiologists.

No ancient hand waving the term 'mind' or 'consciousness' over the working brain will ever do. So far all that has worked is good old materialistic experimental work going from known to unknown in tiny little steps. No jumps, no presumptions, no 'obvious' or 'self evident' incantation, just piling one datum upon another and trying to make sense. What appears is consistent and usable.

 

[ryan]

Schrodinger equation cannot predict brain states, how the brain makes decisions or the decisions that may be made. Someone may be drunk or under the influence of drugs, therefore the brain may make decisions it wouldn't have made when not in that state. Also connectivity decline, structural damage, etc.

The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known. The problem is that it would take computers that will not exist for a long time.

 

[ryan]

So if the Schrodinger equation says that I have a, say, 80% chance of choosing X, I still may not choose X. I still have freedom.

No. As I have told you several times: steering how the wave collapses would violate the SE. Having no control is not free will.

You're still not getting my argument. I am not assuming a subjective force or a ghost. It's just the idea that what happens and what I want to happen is the same thing. The choice is the same thing as the matter. But what separates this from Hume's solution to compatibilism is that it is even free of its pre-decision; I can choose something different at any moment.

 

[DBT]

Schrodinger equation cannot predict brain states, how the brain makes decisions or the decisions that may be made. Someone may be drunk or under the influence of drugs, therefore the brain may make decisions it wouldn't have made when not in that state. Also connectivity decline, structural damage, etc.

The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known. The problem is that it would take computers that will not exist for a long time.

That's a huge claim. A claim you can't back or even describe how the SE applies to the brain as a whole....which is a matter of architecture and relationships to other macro scale objects and events and not how wave function evolves over time.

 

[Juma]

No. As I have told you several times: steering how the wave collapses would violate the SE. Having no control is not free will.

You're still not getting my argument. I am not assuming a subjective force or a ghost. It's just the idea that what happens and what I want to happen is the same thing. The choice is the same thing as the matter. But what separates this from Hume's solution to compatibilism is that it is even free of its pre-decision; I can choose something different at any moment.

you cannot willfully choose different.
That you choice may contain a random emement doesnt only make less controlled, not free.

 

[ryan]

The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known. The problem is that it would take computers that will not exist for a long time.

That's a huge claim. A claim you can't back or even describe how the SE applies to the brain as a whole....which is a matter of architecture and relationships to other macro scale objects and events and not how wave function evolves over time.

If you trust reductionism (the backbone of science and the whole purpose of the Standard Model) then it shouldn't be a surprise that mathematical models on the small scale will determine models on larger scales. Read, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20600159 .

 

[untermensche]

A "mind" does not have to go anywhere to "will" a finger to move.

Really? You are either saying that a process for executing comes with every decision or that 'choice' is nothing more than a way point in a process.

I am saying there is a process that exists that executes orders of the "will".

And if it were just a brain doing it, on it's own for some unexplained reason as impossible as this is to imagine, there would still need to be a process to execute the orders.

A finger at rest needs some kind of order to move from rest. Some kind of initiation has to occur.

 

[ryan]

You're still not getting my argument. I am not assuming a subjective force or a ghost. It's just the idea that what happens and what I want to happen is the same thing. The choice is the same thing as the matter. But what separates this from Hume's solution to compatibilism is that it is even free of its pre-decision; I can choose something different at any moment.

you cannot willfully choose different.
That you choice may contain a random emement doesnt only make less controlled, not free.

It only appears random and uncontrolled from an outside observer. The fact is that my consciousness agrees with the "random" choice made. We could be organisms that do things that we never wanted to chose at any time. I could just constantly be choosing things that I immediately did not want to choose, but we know that's not the case. We own our decisions, and we know we meant them at the time.

 

[untermensche]

It is not pathetic that so-called "cognitive sciences" that doesn't have a clue what cognition is, has explained so little. What is pathetic are the people who believe it has explained everything.

First I'm going to agree that cognitive science hasn't done much in the way of ground breaking theory and discovery. Then I'm going show you that that petard is your way of thinking. Knowledge doesn't come from speculating on the rings of Saturn or by dropping microphones into Manhattan.. It comes from manipulating actual material things. The only reliable way that works for the brain is to examine interactions from synapse to synapse as do physiologists.

No ancient hand waving the term 'mind' or 'consciousness' over the working brain will ever do. So far all that has worked is good old materialistic experimental work going from known to unknown in tiny little steps. No jumps, no presumptions, no 'obvious' or 'self evident' incantation, just piling one datum upon another and trying to make sense. What appears is consistent and usable.

If the mind is some kind of effect caused by neurotransmitters moving across a synapse then possible looking at that will explain it.

But the mind is continually active while awake so whatever is creating it has to be a constant nonstop process.

It can't just be some activity of the brain that appears now and again.