Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

I have already been through this with DBT. New models from new research suggests that decisions are held in a state like a superposition where different decisions are quite possible.

No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states. The single element of memory function either enables decision making if functional, or limits decision making if damaged or in the presence of complete breakdown eliminates all ability to make decisions. Memory function is the key.

 

[ryan]

I have already been through this with DBT. New models from new research suggests that decisions are held in a state like a superposition where different decisions are quite possible.

No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states.

I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.

 

[DBT]

It is not completely deterministic. It only determines probabilities.

Makes no difference. You don't get to choose quantum states or how wave function evolves over time (depending on the interpretation)

 

[DBT]

No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states.

I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.

You ignored my response then, as you always do. You just shift to another angle and try that...eventually coming back full circle.

Quantum does not process information and form consciousness. That is the role of a brain. Behaviour, without exception is related to the state of a brain, species, individuals, life experiences, memory.....quantum substructure being common to all species of brain.

Stop shifting around and deal with it.

Again, all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, but this does not account for the diversity and abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.

Stop avoiding this.

 

[Juma]

Then let me explain me explain it to you, again. (Not that i has any real hope that you will read and comment on what I actually write)

That the "decision is a superposition" means that somehow the brain constraints the waveform into a distribution with a single top. That top represents the decision. Where hhat top is is totally deterministic.

If there are multiple tops that means that we really didnt come to a conclusion more than one result is possible.

You're right; I don't understand what you are talking about. When I studied this, they did not explain such terms like "waveform" and "top". We had other terms like probability distributions and probability densities by squaring the wave function of the Schrodinger equation. So you're right; I do not know the kind of science you know.

Neither of these cases is "free will" as you define it. Since first case is totally deterministic and the second case is purely random = uncontrolled.

As I define it? How about how it is usually defined: the ability to have chosen differently? We know that a choice made could have been something different if it is in a superposition with other choices. I mean this is just obvious.

Do you even understand what it means for something to be a state of superposition in terms of QM? There may be a probability assigned to the set of possible outcomes, but it is not determinable what the outcome will be.

This is such a waste of time. I knew I shouldn't have went down this road with you.

The only thing that is certain is that you will never admit when you are wrong. There must be a "top" there.

i'm Sorry, was s bit tired: "waveform" should have been "wavefunction"
and "top" should have been "peek".

But listen:

A random choice is not a result of will.

Your reasoning can be illustrated by this example:

Let us assume a man is forced (by an extreme threat) to toss a coin to select wether he should kill his brother or not. If he get the head he should kill. He tosses the coin and head comes up and he then kills his brother.

According to you, the outcome could have been different, thus this is an example of free will.

Which is, as the rest of us realize, bullshit. QED.

 

[DBT]

That sums it up.

 

[ryan]

It is not completely deterministic. It only determines probabilities.

Makes no difference. You don't get to choose quantum states or how wave function evolves over time (depending on the interpretation)

But "you" and "quantum states" are the same thing in monism. What the quantum state does is what I do.

Even with classical cognitive decision making, we say that "I" makes the choice even though there are millions of other mechanisms at work. It's how "I" is suppose to be used, and it is how I have been using it.

 

[ryan]

I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.

You ignored my response then, as you always do. You just shift to another angle and try that...eventually coming back full circle.

I made a direct response to your post.

Quantum does not process information and form consciousness.

That's a shaky assumption since Penrose's research on QM microtubules supposedly giving rise to the consciousness.

That is the role of a brain. Behaviour, without exception is related to the state of a brain, species, individuals, life experiences, memory.....quantum substructure being common to all species of brain.

Stop shifting around and deal with it.

Again, all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, but this does not account for the diversity and abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.

Stop avoiding this.

Well when I read Wang's research, I get a much different story. The old models apparently do not work as well as these new models.

 

[ryan]

You're right; I don't understand what you are talking about. When I studied this, they did not explain such terms like "waveform" and "top". We had other terms like probability distributions and probability densities by squaring the wave function of the Schrodinger equation. So you're right; I do not know the kind of science you know.

Neither of these cases is "free will" as you define it. Since first case is totally deterministic and the second case is purely random = uncontrolled.

As I define it? How about how it is usually defined: the ability to have chosen differently? We know that a choice made could have been something different if it is in a superposition with other choices. I mean this is just obvious.

Do you even understand what it means for something to be a state of superposition in terms of QM? There may be a probability assigned to the set of possible outcomes, but it is not determinable what the outcome will be.

This is such a waste of time. I knew I shouldn't have went down this road with you.

The only thing that is certain is that you will never admit when you are wrong. There must be a "top" there.

i'm Sorry, was s bit tired: "waveform" should have been "wavefunction"
and "top" should have been "peek".

But listen:

A random choice is not a result of will.

Assuming monism, I am the matter/QM. The matter/QM made a choice is the same thing as I made a choice. Yes, this would be a different conversation if we were assuming dualism.

Your reasoning can be illustrated by this example:

Let us assume a man is forced (by an extreme threat) to toss a coin to select wether he should kill his brother or not. If he get the head he should kill. He tosses the coin and head comes up and he then kills his brother.

According to you, the outcome could have been different, thus this is an example of free will.

Where was the choice? I clearly put, "the ability to have chosen differently".

 

[DBT]

But matter/QM doesn't consider options and make choices. Brains make choices.

 

[DBT]

You ignored my response then, as you always do. You just shift to another angle and try that...eventually coming back full circle.

I made a direct response to your post.

No you did not. You did not address a thing I said. You just redirected back to microtubules and quantum effects, which is not under dispute.

You completely avoid brain specific behaviour and consciousness. The mind of a mouse being different to the mind of cat, which differs from the mind of a Chimp, yet all have microtubule substructure and quantum effects at synaptic level.

Deal with that.

That's a shaky assumption since Penrose's research on QM microtubules supposedly giving rise to the consciousness.

There is nothing shaky about it. microtubules alone don't perform calculations. There is not a single example of consciousness that is not related to a brain with a central nervous system, senses, etc.

That is not to say that microtubules are not a part of the brains scaffolding or that quantum effects don't play a role at synaptic level.

So you did it again, avoiding what I said was:

Yet again....all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, but this does not account for the diversity and abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.

 

[ryan]

But matter/QM doesn't consider options and make choices. Brains make choices.

And I am a major part of my brain.

 

[ryan]

I made a direct response to your post.

No you did not. You did not address a thing I said. You just redirected back to microtubules and quantum effects, which is not under dispute.

You said, "No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states. The single element of memory function either enables decision making if functional, or limits decision making if damaged or in the presence of complete breakdown eliminates all ability to make decisions. Memory function is the key.".

Then I said, " I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.".

That is me saying that my argument with sources was unmatched by your claim. I provide scientific research, and then you just say "no such thing". How can you possibly expect me to take your word over the research?

You completely avoid brain specific behaviour and consciousness. The mind of a mouse being different to the mind of cat, which differs from the mind of a Chimp, yet all have microtubule substructure and quantum effects at synaptic level.

Deal with that.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with any part of our discussion.

That's a shaky assumption since Penrose's research on QM microtubules supposedly giving rise to the consciousness.

There is nothing shaky about it. microtubules alone don't perform calculations. There is not a single example of consciousness that is not related to a brain with a central nervous system, senses, etc.

That is not to say that microtubules are not a part of the brains scaffolding or that quantum effects don't play a role at synaptic level.

So you did it again, avoiding what I said was:

Yet again....all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, but this does not account for the diversity and abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.

You seem to think that the QM cognition is more of an effect from the environment than it is a part of a conscious person, like kids throwing water balloons at a dog trying to cross the street. But just like non-conscious and non-decision-making parts make up your version of the classical "I" so too would QM parts make up the somewhat free consciousness that I contend exists.

And clearly there is some "hardware" and "software" in the brain that sets the stage for much of our choices and behavior. Choices/decision-making are not linear constructions stemming from their inputs like they used to think they were. A quantum consciousness has some physical freedom as the entity we call "I". And this "I" reports getting its way.

 

[DBT]

No you did not. You did not address a thing I said. You just redirected back to microtubules and quantum effects, which is not under dispute.

You said, "No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states. The single element of memory function either enables decision making if functional, or limits decision making if damaged or in the presence of complete breakdown eliminates all ability to make decisions. Memory function is the key.".

Then I said, " I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.".

That is me saying that my argument with sources was unmatched by your claim. I provide scientific research, and then you just say "no such thing". How can you possibly expect me to take your word over the research?

The research does not explain brain specific behaviour, some are using quantum to explain irrational decisions, and of course the idea of quantum consciousness...which is not only unproven but has no actual evidence to support it.

The research does not support your beliefs, nor mean what you think it means.

Meanwhile you avoid addressing what I asked you to address, through your tactics of redirection.

Ryan, address what I said. Don't redirect in order to avoid this issue.

Here it is again:

I am not saying that microtubules are not a part of the brains scaffolding or that quantum effects don't play a role at synaptic level.

There is not a single example of mind/consciousness that is not related to an active brain with a central nervous system, senses, etc.

all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, which is common to all brains, central nervous systems and organisms as a whole, but this does not account for the range of abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.


Ryan, can you address these points without redirecting to research that does not account for brain specific attributes and behaviours.

Or supply research that specifically deals with these points.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with any part of our discussion.

Of course you do. It lies at the heart of agency, brain agency to be specific.

 

[DBT]

But matter/QM doesn't consider options and make choices. Brains make choices.

And I am a major part of my brain.

You are precisely what the brain is doing. Nothing more, nothing less. A collection of active memories. Memories disappear, so do you.

 

[untermensche]

The irony of this coming from someone who is making a claim that is not supported by practically everyone who works in the field of neuroscience obviously escapes you

This is one of my favorite videos. An eighty something Chomsky explaining to all these people claiming they are doing "science" that they are doing nonsense. Then he deconstructs the bad logic in a few questions.

It is about the field of "Computational Cognitive Science" and their work on the statistical analysis of raw language data. Chomsky compares it to a physicist looking out the window and trying to come up with a statistical model of the leaves blowing and the grass growing. Something most physicists would recognize as a waste of time if you are looking for underlying principles and something no physicist does.

It really is amazing how blind these so-called "scientists" are to what they are doing.

So when you use the fallacious argument that something is a widely believed dogma, therefore it is true, that is not persuasive.

Neuroscience can make no statements about consciousness because it does not know what consciousness is.

 

[ryan]

You said, "No such thing. It is information from the senses and memory that stimulate brain response, not quantum states. The single element of memory function either enables decision making if functional, or limits decision making if damaged or in the presence of complete breakdown eliminates all ability to make decisions. Memory function is the key.".

Then I said, " I posted the research. It is not enough to say "no such thing" without backing it up with research that falsifies the new research.".

That is me saying that my argument with sources was unmatched by your claim. I provide scientific research, and then you just say "no such thing". How can you possibly expect me to take your word over the research?

The research does not explain brain specific behaviour, some are using quantum to explain irrational decisions, and of course the idea of quantum consciousness...which is not only unproven but has no actual evidence to support it.

I was very clear that I am not trying to prove anything; I am arguing for a possibility. You are the one with the false sense of certainty. And even though the QM cognition models are more accurate than past models, you are the one who needs proof? This makes zero sense.

There is not a single example of mind/consciousness that is not related to an active brain with a central nervous system, senses, etc.

Since I am assuming monism, the mind and matter being the same thing, of course I agree. I really don't know why you keep posting this.

all species and types and conditions of brain have a quantum substructure, which is common to all brains, central nervous systems and organisms as a whole, but this does not account for the range of abilities and attributes of different brains with diverse neural architecture/networks.

Who said QM was responsible for everything?

Ryan, can you address these points without redirecting to research that does not account for brain specific attributes and behaviours.

How many times do I have to say that I also think that there is hardware and software involved (computational theory of the mind/brain).

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with any part of our discussion.

Of course you do. It lies at the heart of agency, brain agency to be specific.

agency? You mean the same agency that a robot has?

 

[ryan]

And I am a major part of my brain.

You are precisely what the brain is doing. Nothing more, nothing less. A collection of active memories. Memories disappear, so do you.

Agreed, so if the brain could have chosen differently, which I have showed may be the case with irrational choices as well as close choices, then "I" have free will. Nothing magical, no change to what we are, not going out on a huge limb, just that our will has freedom, or at least, sometimes has freedom.

 

[Juma]

Your reasoning can be illustrated by this example:

Let us assume a man is forced (by an extreme threat) to toss a coin to select wether he should kill his brother or not. If he get the head he should kill. He tosses the coin and head comes up and he then kills his brother.

According to you, the outcome could have been different, thus this is an example of free will.

Where was the choice? I clearly put, "the ability to have chosen differently".

Really? You dodge this by pretending that you dont get the example?

 

[ryan]

Where was the choice? I clearly put, "the ability to have chosen differently".

Really? You dodge this by pretending that you dont get the example?

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a strawman because I did not say "outcome"; I said "choice". You twisted what I said to suit your argument.

But if you need an answer, sure, the outcome could have been different. But I don't know what that has to do with what I am talking about.