Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

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.

Chomsky? Holy boloney, the man is as irrational as you when it comes to neurophysiology.

You need to do better than that, mr untermensche;

On neurophysiology

Even Chomsky realizes that it is the brain that does the thinking, and that the brain is made of neurons and neuroglia. Thus sciences of neurons, neuroglia and brain anatomy, collectively called neurophysiology, are important in understanding human thinking.

Not according to Chomsky. Here is what he has to say in a newer book

(Chomsky (1993). Language and Thought. Moyer Bell, 1-55921-074-5)(P. 85):

"In fact, the belief that neurophysiology is even relevant to the functioning of the mind is just a hypothesis. Who knows if we're looking at the right aspect of the brain at all. Maybe there are other aspects of the brain that nobody has even dreamt of looking at yet.".

Thus Chomsky can dismiss complete fields of science as 'just a hypothesis'. Note that what Chomsky is dismissing is not specific theories inside neurophysiology, but the whole field, and that it is not based on any evidence to contradict the fundamental tenets of neurophysiology. It is based on the possibility of 'other aspects of the brain', but Chomsky does not tell us how these 'other aspects' could have escaped years of scrutiny by invasive methods in both animals and humans patients.

Dismissing whole sciences without evidence may seem outrageous, but it follows directly from Chomsky ideas about science. If science is 'blind luck', then neurophysiology can be simply a bad draw.

There is special significance for dismissing neurophysiology, because while Chomsky's ideas can be easily shown to be nonsense, they can be totally refuted (or confirmed) only by neurophysiological evidence. Thus by dismissing neurophysiology as 'a hypothesis', Chomsky protects his ideas from refutation.

6. Conclusion

Chomsky believes that learning of novel concepts is impossible, and hence that everything must be built in, as part of human 'biological endowment'. This applies not only to language, but to everything, including general knowledge about the world, numerical ability and science inquiry ('blind luck').

The amazing thing about these statements is not that Chomsky states them, as many people state all kinds of nonsense. The amazing thing is that after stating these, he is still regarded seriously by any intelligent person. In particular, considering his contempt to science, it seems surprising that serious scientists regard him as an authority. ''

 

[DBT]

Who said QM was responsible for everything?

That's not the point....QM in relation to your contention of free will being the point. More to the point: we do not choose quantum states or their effects on the brain, perhaps occurring at synaptic junctions, consequently we ( brains) do not choose whatever behaviour results from these events, regardless of all the other difficulties with the concept of free will.

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

No. I've already explained the difference too many times.

Now can you pleas address the questions I have put to you?

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

 

[ryan]

Now can you pleas address the questions I have put to you?

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

I addressed this in my last post. My answer is that I agree.

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

So we seem to be on the same page, as I tried to explain in my last post. Much of the brain is hardware and software (computational neural network), but some of the brain acts freely according to quantum cognition models.

 

[DBT]

I addressed this in my last post. My answer is that I agree.

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

So we seem to be on the same page, as I tried to explain in my last post. Much of the brain is hardware and software (computational neural network), but some of the brain acts freely according to quantum cognition models.

Random or non chosen events within the brains architecture, including quantum effects upon the system, are not examples of decision making. The actions that follow are not 'freely' chosen options.

Regardless of quantum effects, it still remains that it is the state and condition of the brain that determines decisions made an actions taken in any given instance in time, and the reason why the term 'free will' is a misnomer.

 

[Juma]

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.

I dont believe that you dont realize that the coin represents the random element in QM.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

The brain has processes ongoing all the time. What those processes happen to be and what triggers them is pretty well defined. For instance, neural processes proceed from the receptor cells in the basilar membrane to loci in the accessory nucleus where time differences between the ear are generated and sent up to the pons for processing and transfer to other well defined processes controlling both eye, head, neck, and body movement which are used to bring the object heard into the view of the eyes and nose. movement.

What appear to be decision making processes are taking place in the language and lateral medial frontal cortex which communicate through neural processes to the motor cortex appropriate for executing commands to appropriate muscles to be ready to act on other information being sent to the cerebellum to specific discrete task processes. What you call consciousness seems to be a combination of memory initiation commands and articulation sequences from the decision making centers to produce articulation of attentions previously triggered at lower centers such as those in the midbrain. This latter system is less well defined precisely because it is remote to inputs and outputs which is why I've been preaching directly measurable behaviors.

No need for such as things called will, consciousness, or mind. Its a machine.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

The cat is either dead or alive depending on time. All that is dispersed is the probability of when the cat dies. That is the superposition QM brings.

QM doesn't accommodate a bunch of choices of behaviors. It provides a choice of times. The principle of no two things at the some time stands. Only one thing may occupy a particular space at a particular time. So free to chose otherwise in not helped by QM. Determinism stands.

 

[ryan]

I addressed this in my last post. My answer is that I agree.



So we seem to be on the same page, as I tried to explain in my last post. Much of the brain is hardware and software (computational neural network), but some of the brain acts freely according to quantum cognition models.

Random or non chosen events within the brains architecture, including quantum effects upon the system, are not examples of decision making. The actions that follow are not 'freely' chosen options.

Regardless of quantum effects, it still remains that it is the state and condition of the brain that determines decisions made an actions taken in any given instance in time, and the reason why the term 'free will' is a misnomer.

We both seem to pretty much agree that I = brain. You have in your post that I/brain determines decisions. So I determines my decisions.

The research says, "... superposition, which suggests that some psychological states cannot be defined with respect to definite values but, instead, that all possible values within the superposition have some potential for being expressed.". from http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/24/3/163.abstract Therefor I determines between multiple options with either being physically allowable. So if I/brain chooses A when it could have chosen B, then I/brain could have chosen differently.

 

[ryan]

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.

I dont believe that you dont realize that the coin represents the random element in QM.

Oh, but still, if it is outside of the agent, then it's not really the agent that chooses differently; rather, it's a fork in reality beyond the choice. And then that just turns into the argument for compatibilism, which I am not arguing for.

 

[Juma]

I dont believe that you dont realize that the coin represents the random element in QM.

Oh, but still, if it is outside of the agent, then it's not really the agent that chooses differently; rather, it's a fork in reality beyond the choice. And then that just turns into the argument for compatibilism, which I am not arguing for.

Its an EXAMPLE that shows that random events , wether inside or outside the agent, is not free will, it isnt will at all.

 

[ryan]

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.

Only one thing may occupy a particular space at a particular time.

Wrong, and we know it's wrong because a particle will actually hit itself in the double slit experiment. Feynman formulated his interpretation of QM as a path integral where a particle will take an infinite number of paths at the same time to get to a singular position. Here is a non-rigorous but reputable summary, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rmJ1Qn1gPM

 

[ryan]

Oh, but still, if it is outside of the agent, then it's not really the agent that chooses differently; rather, it's a fork in reality beyond the choice. And then that just turns into the argument for compatibilism, which I am not arguing for.

Its an EXAMPLE that shows that random events , wether inside or outside the agent, is not free will, it isnt will at all.

Will is just a biological mechanism/definition. The question simply comes down to whether or not this biological mechanism/definition could have produced a different output/choice. Turns out, it probably can; that's it, case closed.

 

[Juma]

Its an EXAMPLE that shows that random events , wether inside or outside the agent, is not free will, it isnt will at all.

Will is just a biological mechanism/definition. The question simply comes down to whether or not this biological mechanism/definition could have produced a different output/choice. Turns out, it probably can; that's it, case closed.

So the ONLY required aspect of your free will is that the choice "could have been different". Not that you actually have any control over what the choice is?

 

[fromderinside]

Only one thing may occupy a particular space at a particular time.

Wrong, and we know it's wrong because a particle will actually hit itself in the double slit experiment. Feynman formulated his interpretation of QM as a path integral where a particle will take an infinite number of paths at the same time to get to a singular position. Here is a non-rigorous but reputable summary, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rmJ1Qn1gPM

Heck. Everybody knows things in motion strike each other. However they don't just become two things in the same space. Both change if they become a composite. Still only one thing occupies that space at that time.

 

[ryan]

Will is just a biological mechanism/definition. The question simply comes down to whether or not this biological mechanism/definition could have produced a different output/choice. Turns out, it probably can; that's it, case closed.

So the ONLY required aspect of your free will is that the choice "could have been different". Not that you actually have any control over what the choice is?

My definition of free will?

Anyways, a choice, scientifically/objectively speaking is something that simply comes after something else. We assume that there is no magical connection (I happen to believe in a magical/metaphysical connection, but that's for a different thread).

Now the question of free will is whether or not that choice could have been different, and I am not just talking about Hume's solution to compatibilism. In my argument, identical universes could lead right up to before one makes a choice of either A or B, and either is possible. One could have chosen differently.

 

[ryan]

Wrong, and we know it's wrong because a particle will actually hit itself in the double slit experiment. Feynman formulated his interpretation of QM as a path integral where a particle will take an infinite number of paths at the same time to get to a singular position. Here is a non-rigorous but reputable summary, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rmJ1Qn1gPM

Heck. Everybody knows things in motion strike each other. However they don't just become two things in the same space. Both change if they become a composite. Still only one thing occupies that space at that time.

Are you talking about the space it occupies? If you are, then I still don't see how this implies determinism. How do you know that the future already exists?

 

[DBT]

Random or non chosen events within the brains architecture, including quantum effects upon the system, are not examples of decision making. The actions that follow are not 'freely' chosen options.

Regardless of quantum effects, it still remains that it is the state and condition of the brain that determines decisions made an actions taken in any given instance in time, and the reason why the term 'free will' is a misnomer.

We both seem to pretty much agree that I = brain. You have in your post that I/brain determines decisions. So I determines my decisions.

That's a whole swag full of category errors.

When you think of yourself - your sense of 'me' - you don't think in terms of neural networks, dendrites, synaptic junctions, transmitters, etc, you think of your conscious self, your conscious thoughts and feelings. The category error being that you the conscious self have no access to the mechanism that is producing a conscious entity, you and your thoughts and feelings, hopes, fears and wants.

So, you and your being produced by entirely unconscious inputs and neural networks, you have no more say in the matter of condition than does the brain at large...which is no say whatsoever.

You are what the brain is doing and the brain as a neural processor of information is what it is through an interaction of genes and environment. The environment working upon the system which responds by forming new connections and memories, pattern recognition and response. An interactive system.

The research says, "... superposition, which suggests that some psychological states cannot be defined with respect to definite values but, instead, that all possible values within the superposition have some potential for being expressed.". from http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/24/3/163.abstract

Makes not the slightest difference to anything I have said. This is common to all brains, all species and all individuals.

Therefor I determines between multiple options with either being physically allowable. So if I/brain chooses A when it could have chosen B, then I/brain could have chosen differently.

You don't determine anything. You are not even aware of the options, particle superposition has no relationship to information processing or rational weighing of options based on a given set of criteria. Superposition doesn't determine whether you choose to get married, take this job rather than that job, buy this car rather than that. If a random quantum fluctuation disrupts the rational process of decision making, you have an anomaly, a glitch, something that is likely to be regretted a moment later. This is not free will.

You claim is a dead end.

 

[ryan]

We both seem to pretty much agree that I = brain. You have in your post that I/brain determines decisions. So I determines my decisions.

That's a whole swag full of category errors.

When you think of yourself - your sense of 'me' - you don't think in terms of neural networks, dendrites, synaptic junctions, transmitters, etc, you think of your conscious self, your conscious thoughts and feelings. The category error being that you the conscious self have no access to the mechanism that is producing a conscious entity, you and your thoughts and feelings, hopes, fears and wants.

Yes, somethings like fear may not be probabilistic; I never claimed that.

You don't determine anything. You are not even aware of the options,

We are aware of the options though. The research asks the subjects questions, and they answer unpredictably/probabilistically.

particle superposition has no relationship to information processing or rational weighing of options based on a given set of criteria. Superposition doesn't determine whether you choose to get married, take this job rather than that job, buy this car rather than that.

That goes against the research.

 

[DBT]

Yes, somethings like fear may not be probabilistic; I never claimed that.

Nor are your likes and dislikes or your desires, needs or wants, all of these being formed through experience and memory, the very foundation of what is chosen and why. The fact being that if memory function fails, so does the ability to make decisions. Memory is deterministic.

We are aware of the options though. The research asks the subjects questions, and they answer unpredictably/probabilistically.

We are aware of the options when awareness of the options achieves readiness potential and is reported in conscious form....but it is the activity that precedes readiness potential that I'm talking about. And have been from the beginning. Which is what you conveniently slide around each and every time I point it out.

Plus you have made the very same category error immediately after I pointed it out.

That goes against the research.

No it doesn't...or perhaps you are misconstruing what I said. Another category error.

 

[ryan]

Nor are your likes and dislikes or your desires, needs or wants, all of these being formed through experience and memory, the very foundation of what is chosen and why. The fact being that if memory function fails, so does the ability to make decisions. Memory is deterministic.

So then you are outright ignoring the quantum cognition research.

We are aware of the options though. The research asks the subjects questions, and they answer unpredictably/probabilistically.

We are aware of the options when awareness of the options achieves readiness potential and is reported in conscious form....but it is the activity that precedes readiness potential that I'm talking about. And have been from the beginning. Which is what you conveniently slide around each and every time I point it out.

Everything leading up to the readiness potential would determine the RP and ultimately the decision. But this isn't necessarily a deterministic/Newtonian universe. If it were, then I would agree that to some extent that

That goes against the research.

No it doesn't...or perhaps you are misconstruing what I said. Another category error.

You said, "Superposition doesn't determine whether you choose to get married, take this job rather than that job, buy this car rather than that.".

Wang says, "“Whenever something comes up that isn’t consistent with classical theories, we often label it as ‘irrational.’ But from the perspective of quantum cognition, some findings aren’t irrational anymore. They’re consistent with quantum theory—and with how people really behave”".

She also says, "“In the social and behavioral sciences as a whole, we use probability models a lot,” she said. “For example, we ask, what is the probability that a person will act a certain way or make a certain decision? Traditionally, those models are all based on classical probability theory—which arose from the classical physics of Newtonian systems. So it’s really not so exotic for social scientists to think about quantum systems and their mathematical principles, too.”".

Finally she says, "“Our brain can’t store everything. We don’t always have clear attitudes about things. But when you ask me a question, like ‘What do you want for dinner?” I have to think about it and come up with or construct a clear answer right there,” Wang said. “That’s quantum cognition.”".

all from https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/09/14/youre-not-irrational-youre-just-quantum-probabilistic/