Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

Also read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

 

[bigfield]

Also read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

 

[ryan]

Also read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

It's true that their papers are not claiming that a working model uses QM, but they seemed to have inspired others to theorize on possible working models that use QM to explain quantum cognition.

 

[bigfield]

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

It's true that their papers are not claiming that a working model uses QM, but they seemed to have inspired others to theorize on possible working models that use QM to explain quantum cognition.

Whom have they inspired?

 

[ryan]

It's true that their papers are not claiming that a working model uses QM, but they seemed to have inspired others to theorize on possible working models that use QM to explain quantum cognition.

Whom have they inspired?

One of them goes by the Matthew P.A. Fisher.

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the
phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—
which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

My argument with DBT is to suggest that free will is mechanically possible, not that it necessarily exists.

 

[fromderinside]

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?

Yes. The point is that "the ability to choose otherwise" cannot be exercised if there is a function collapsing to a reality since only one thing is collapsing. That is only one thing is composed in the wave and that is the single thing in time. It relates to how QM operates to time and not options other than time as suggested by some when they wrote 'options' earlier.

 

[DBT]

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/

You are still confusing/conflating 'quantum cognition' - which does not mean that brain architecture is not the determining factor of what is being produced (mice don't think about buying clothes, houses or cars) - by the actual processing of information by neural networks.

And still ignoring that 'quantum cognition' is common to all species of brain, and all individual brains, yet a pet rabbit has no aspirations for finding a job or buying a house....

 

[ryan]

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?

Yes. The point is that "the ability to choose otherwise" cannot be exercised if there is a function collapsing to a reality since only one thing is collapsing. That is only one thing is composed in the wave and that is the single thing in time. It relates to how QM operates to time and not options other than time as suggested by some when they wrote 'options' earlier.

The collapse happens anywhere there is a probability density greater than 0. It could have collapsed elsewhere.

 

[ryan]

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/

You are still confusing/conflating 'quantum cognition' - which does not mean that brain architecture is not the determining factor of what is being produced (mice don't think about buying clothes, houses or cars) - by the actual processing of information by neural networks.

And still ignoring that 'quantum cognition' is common to all species of brain, and all individual brains, yet a pet rabbit has no aspirations for finding a job or buying a house....

Why would quantum cognition add more options into a rabbit's brain? And what studies show that animals other than humans have QC? And if a rabbit does have QC, then there might be a superposition in its brain between going after a carrot that is close to a predator or not.

Why would the rabbit suddenly have a more complex brain?

 

[fromderinside]

Yes. The point is that "the ability to choose otherwise" cannot be exercised if there is a function collapsing to a reality since only one thing is collapsing. That is only one thing is composed in the wave and that is the single thing in time. It relates to how QM operates to time and not options other than time as suggested by some when they wrote 'options' earlier.

The collapse happens anywhere there is a probability density greater than 0. It could have collapsed elsewhere.

What is happening is the time variable of the event collapses to time of occurrence. The 'elsewhere' is another point in time. There is no suite of events wave which goes to my point that only one thing can occupy a location in space at any point in time.

 

[bigfield]

Whom have they inspired?

One of them goes by the Matthew P.A. Fisher.

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the
phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—
which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

My argument with DBT is to suggest that free will is mechanically possible, not that it necessarily exists.

Fisher doesn't identify a potential mechanism by which quantum effects control decision-making: he merely takes an extremely tentative link between quantum effects in phosphates and synaptic activity.

We identify the ‘‘Posner molecule’’, Ca₉(PO₄)₆, as the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very long timesand thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory. A central requirement for quantum-processing is quantum entanglement.It is argued that the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophosphate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits. Posner molecules, formed by binding such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement. A mechanism for transporting Posner molecules into presynaptic neurons during vesicle endocytosis is proposed. Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules,triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.

How does this provide evidence that "free will is mechanically possible"?

 

[untermensche]

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.

The eighty something man took a room full of so-called working scientists (so-called computational neuroscientists, specifically looking at language and language acquisition) and showed them how what they were doing is complete nonsense, not science.

They tried to speak up for themselves but he destroyed their worthless arguments. It is an amazing video.

You obviously did not watch it.

Instead you post some really bad third rate comments about Chomsky. I don't know where you got them but they are complete nonsense and all they show is a lack of understanding of Chomsky's work and language.

Here is what Chomsky has to say about science (P. 157-158): "This partial congruence between the truth about the world and what the human science-forming capacity produces at a given moment yields science. Notice that it is just blind luck if the human science-forming capacity, a particular component of the human biological endowment, happens to yield a result that conforms more or less to the truth about the world."

Here Chomsky speaks a simple truth. He says that humans can only understand in ways that their genetic endowment allow. Humans cannot fly because of the limits of their genetic endowment and they can only think in ways allowed by their genetic endowment. They are not all knowing all thinking creatures. They are apes that are trapped within the confines of their limited ways to think about the world.

But this is what your third rate source has to say: (Did you even read it before posting it because it is an embarrassment?)

You probably have to read this more than once to actually understand it. Chomsky claims that the achievements of science are "blind luck".....

That unbelievably is the extent of this worthless argument. Chomsky claims that all things humans can do are the result of their genetic endowment so any understanding is just sheer luck. The sheer luck of evolutionary progress. The contingency of evolutionary progress. And this worthless critic for some unexplained reason can't understand this.

Then this flies in from outer space:

This refusal to admit a general intelligence is a fundamental error in Chomsky's thinking.

This is nothing more than a dogmatic position without any supporting argument. Nothing can lead us to think Chomsky refutes or accepts this idea of "general intelligence", something not explained at all.

This is really such trash you waste my time even reading it.

I really don't want to waste my time destroying all these bad, really bad, arguments about Chomsky.

You could not do it if you tried. You do not understand reason or logical argument. You made the same irrational arguments, and still make them over and over.

Horribly bad arguments like: The brain is modular, therefore I know what the mind can and can not do.

As bad an argument as can be made.

Or worthless arguments like this: Everything that happens in the brain happens in the brain. Therefore I know all that is possible about what can happen in the brain.

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.

I used Chomsky as an example of so-called scientists doing what they think is science being shown they are doing absolute nonsense. But you have to watch the video to understand.

I have no idea what Chomsky thinks about the idea of a "mind as mechanism".

"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.".

Chomsky is absolutely right here.

And it is what I have said several times.

Neuroscience can say nothing about consciousness because it does not know what consciousness is.

 

[ryan]

The collapse happens anywhere there is a probability density greater than 0. It could have collapsed elsewhere.

What is happening is the time variable of the event collapses to time of occurrence. The 'elsewhere' is another point in time. There is no suite of events wave which goes to my point that only one thing can occupy a location in space at any point in time.

No, that's wrong. You only get a probability at time t.

 

[ryan]

One of them goes by the Matthew P.A. Fisher.

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the
phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—
which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

My argument with DBT is to suggest that free will is mechanically possible, not that it necessarily exists.

Fisher doesn't identify a potential mechanism by which quantum effects control decision-making: he merely takes an extremely tentative link between quantum effects in phosphates and synaptic activity.

Read the quote I posted about it being a working definition of QC. Combine that with this quote, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

We identify the ‘‘Posner molecule’’, Ca₉(PO₄)₆, as the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very long timesand thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory. A central requirement for quantum-processing is quantum entanglement.It is argued that the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophosphate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits. Posner molecules, formed by binding such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement. A mechanism for transporting Posner molecules into presynaptic neurons during vesicle endocytosis is proposed. Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules,triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.

How does this provide evidence that "free will is mechanically possible"?

Barring extra dimensions, nothing forces me to choose A over B when A and B are in a superposition of possible outcomes. If I chose B, I still could have chosen A.

 

[fromderinside]

No, that's wrong. You only get a probability at time t.

yes each time has a probability for the thing. When the wave collapses one has an observation of a thing at that probable time.

 

[ryan]

No, that's wrong. You only get a probability at time t.

yes each time has a probability for the thing. When the wave collapses one has an observation of a thing at that probable time.

I have no idea what you are talking about. And you have chosen the one interpretation that at face value supports a nondeterministic universe. You need extra dimensions like with string theory or many worlds interpretation of QM. At least then you could claim a possibility of determinism.

 

[DBT]

Why would quantum cognition add more options into a rabbit's brain?

Why would the rabbit suddenly have a more complex brain?

That's the whole point!!!!! That the process of selecting options is not performed by quantum conditions within a brain, but the architecture of a brain!!!!

And what studies show that animals other than humans have QC?

Ryan, that's just being silly....do you seriously suggest that only the human brain has a quantum substructure? That animals other than human have no fundamental particles within their brain structures? That there are no quantum effects at work within their synaptic junctions, etc?

Seriously?

If you want studies, look at the latest research on bird navigation on the basis of detection of quantum effects in the environment.

And if a rabbit does have QC, then there might be a superposition in its brain between going after a carrot that is close to a predator or not.

Oh, please...you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

 

[DBT]

Chomsky is absolutely right here.

And it is what I have said several times.

Neuroscience can say nothing about consciousness because it does not know what consciousness is.

Chomsky is wrong for the reasons given in the article.

You are wrong because you summarily dismiss all that is understood about the relationship between brain condition and its related behaviour, memory failure as one example (a failure of connectivity, neural tangles) destroying all ability to recognise sensory information, to reason and make rational decisions.

Yet you persist in repeating what is not yet understood (but possibly may be in the future); how the brain forms experience.

Which matters not in the least when it is abundantly clear that brain condition equals output in terms of conscious experience. Which as I've pointed out, is proven with changes in brain chemistry and structural condition.

 

[Juma]

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?

Yes. YOUR definition of free will.
Your definition of free will is the only one that has dismissmed the part being able to control the result of the deciding act.

How can I be responsible for shooting my brother if it is a totally random act? That situation would rather result in medical care than a sentence to prison.

The concept of will require that the decisions made is controlled by the agent. Random decisions is not controlled and thus not willed.

 

[ryan]

That's the whole point!!!!! That the process of selecting options is not performed by quantum conditions within a brain, but the architecture of a brain!!!!

First of all, you went from adding options to selecting options; I am definitely not saying new options can be added. Second, I can show you a possible working model of quantum cognition again,

"Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

And what studies show that animals other than humans have QC?

Ryan, that's just being silly....do you seriously suggest that only the human brain has a quantum substructure? That animals other than human have no fundamental particles within their brain structures? That there are no quantum effects at work within their synaptic junctions, etc?

Seriously?

If you want studies, look at the latest research on bird navigation on the basis of detection of quantum effects in the environment.

Clearly we have different quantum structure since I can't "feel" my way north like birds can.

And if a rabbit does have QC, then there might be a superposition in its brain between going after a carrot that is close to a predator or not.

Oh, please...you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

The range of choices is not going to change, just the selection is not going to be predetermined.