Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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.

Show me these definitions, please.

Anyways, it is controlled and on purpose. It is what the agent wanted. Quantum cognition is not only about choices that the agent claims not to have any control over.

 

[DBT]

First of all, you went from adding options to selecting options; I am definitely not saying new options can be added.

Where did I talk about 'adding options?' I think you may be misinterpreting something I said.

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

That doesn't mean that quantum particles/states are performing information processing. That is the brain as a whole processing information, utilising quantum effects at lowest reaches of its architecture. Again, no neural architecture equals no information processing takes place, or is possible. Plus the mechanism is common to all species of brain. The architecture of the brain determining its output regardless of quantum activity at its smallest scales

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

Well, there you go, your brain does not have the architecture of the bird species with that ability, yet quantum substructure is common to both.

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

I didn't say 'predetermined' - unless you mean information processing prior to conscious report?

 

[ryan]

Where did I talk about 'adding options?' I think you may be misinterpreting something I said.

You added options to what the rabbit would typically have, such as wanting to buy a house.

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

The architecture of the brain determining its output regardless of quantum activity at its smallest scales

How could you say this??? You now seem to be just ignoring the possible working model of quantum cognition where a superposition of choices are possible and await to process information. Did you read my quote from the abstract?

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

Well, there you go, your brain does not have the architecture of the bird species with that ability, yet quantum substructure is common to both.

Yes, but I don't think it would be the same as the QC that we are discussing.

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

I didn't say 'predetermined' - unless you mean information processing prior to conscious report?

From what I have been reading about computational theories of the mind, like a computer a certain input will produce a certain output. The choice has been predetermined in the case of certain information. But with QC, a certain input gives multiple possible outputs.

 

[bigfield]

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.".

Yes, that is an extremely tentative link between quantum effects in phosphates and synaptic activity. Fisher is suggesting that quantum effects could randomly influence brain activity in some manner akin to an extremely weak psychoactive drug. Calling this 'quantum cognition' is a stretch Reed Richards couldn't manage.

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.

That doesn't follow from Fisher's article: Fisher's 'quantum cognition' deals with quantum entanglement between phosphates in different parts of the brain; it doesn't propose a cognitive mechanism that involves quantum superposition.

Superposition is a theory used by Wang et al in order to model cognitive processes, but those models don't deal with actual quantum effects.

 

[ryan]

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.".

Yes, that is an extremely tentative link between quantum effects in phosphates and synaptic activity. Fisher is suggesting that quantum effects could randomly influence brain activity in some manner akin to an extremely weak psychoactive drug. Calling this 'quantum cognition' is a stretch Reed Richards couldn't manage.

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.

That doesn't follow from Fisher's article: Fisher's 'quantum cognition' deals with quantum entanglement between phosphates in different parts of the brain; it doesn't propose a cognitive mechanism that involves quantum superposition.

Superposition is a theory used by Wang et al in order to model cognitive processes, but those models don't deal with actual quantum effects.

Superposition is a characteristic of quantum entangled systems. It should be expected that probabilistic QM correlations between neuron firing rates will have to have a probabilistic effect on choices made.

My argument with DBT is only that it is still possible to have free will as it is commonly defined.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I notice you can't specify anything about what Chomsky is wrong about.

You persist in making dogmatic claims you can't back up.

You, nor anyone else, has the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Not the slightest clue.

So any claims, beyond the claims of your own experience of consciousness, you make about it are nonsense.

Like your worthless claims about the clear and repeated observation of a mind causing a finger to move by "willing" it.

You can't dismiss clear evidence like this with the nothingness you provide. You can't dismiss it with dogmatic statements you can't back up.

 

[bigfield]

Yes, that is an extremely tentative link between quantum effects in phosphates and synaptic activity. Fisher is suggesting that quantum effects could randomly influence brain activity in some manner akin to an extremely weak psychoactive drug. Calling this 'quantum cognition' is a stretch Reed Richards couldn't manage.

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.

That doesn't follow from Fisher's article: Fisher's 'quantum cognition' deals with quantum entanglement between phosphates in different parts of the brain; it doesn't propose a cognitive mechanism that involves quantum superposition.

Superposition is a theory used by Wang et al in order to model cognitive processes, but those models don't deal with actual quantum effects.

Superposition is a characteristic of quantum entangled systems. It should be expected that probabilistic QM correlations between neuron firing rates will have to have a probabilistic effect on choices made.

That would be insignificant effect on an insignificant effect, due to the scale.

 

[Juma]

Show me these definitions, please.

Check any definition of will.

Anyways, it is controlled and on purpose.

If it is random it is not controlled.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

So when you have been completely shown wrong you resort to Trumpianism. Yes, he won the debate because when anybody uses their robots to participate he's shown to be the 'winner'. It applies to you. You, without evidence make claims that String theory need be applied to make my analysis work.

OK.

How so?

 

[ryan]

Check any definition of will.

I did. If you look anywhere, you will see "could have chosen otherwise". If the agent choses, then clearly the agent is in control as far as scientific definitions are concerned.

Anyways, it is controlled and on purpose.

If it is random it is not controlled.

Again, it's objectively random which is exactly what an outside observer would observe.

 

[ryan]

That would be insignificant effect on an insignificant effect, due to the scale.

That's your claim. The paper claims differently (from page 600),

"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’’. Phosphate uptake by neurons might
provide the critical link.".

Then read,

"Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain.".

Read all of page 600 for the whole explanation.

 

[ryan]

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.

So when you have been completely shown wrong you resort to Trumpianism. Yes, he won the debate because when anybody uses their robots to participate he's shown to be the 'winner'. It applies to you. You, without evidence make claims that String theory need be applied to make my analysis work.

OK.

How so?

What was I shown to be wrong about?

And I am trying to understand how we can determine outcomes with wave function collapse theories. That is why I am confused about why you wouldn't go with a theory like string theory that has extra dimensions. At least with extra dimensions there is a chance at determining QM.

 

[DBT]

I notice you can't specify anything about what Chomsky is wrong about.

The article did that. That was the point of the article. You ignored the article.

I could explain what the article said about why Chomsky is wrong, but as the article already did that reasonably enough, but was ignored and dismissed, there is no reason to suppose that anything I say isn't going to be ignored and dismissed.

I have patiently pointed out the errors of your claims over the course of this thread. You ignore everything I say.

You persist in making dogmatic claims you can't back up.

That's quite funny coming from someone who is claiming autonomous mind in the face of all evidence against autonomy.

You, nor anyone else, has the slightest clue what consciousness is.

Not the slightest clue.

You claim to know something. You claim that mind can act independently from the brain, the very mechanism that is forming mind.

Nor is the case that nothing is known or understood. It is clear that the brain gathers information from its senses and forms a virtual representation of some of this information, information being filtered before conscious report. And as I've already said countless times, how this is achieved by neural activity is not understood

 

[DBT]

You added options to what the rabbit would typically have, such as wanting to buy a house.

That was to illustrate that it is the architecture of a brain that determines its abilities in terms of concepts, ideas and capacity for abstract thought.

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

You are still fixated on quantum effects at the smallest scales of brain architecture as a part of the means by which a brain processes information and forms conscious experience.

It is not actually 'quantum cognition' but brain cognition....there being no form of cognition in the absence of a functional brain.

And you are still dodging the fact that this is common to all species of brain, but it is the architecture of a functional brain that determines its capacity and attributes, ability to think, make decision, take actions and so on

How could you say this??? You now seem to be just ignoring the possible working model of quantum cognition where a superposition of choices are possible and await to process information. Did you read my quote from the abstract?

I can say it because different species of animals have brain architecture that generates behaviour that is specific to a species and individual variations within a species due to genetic diversity and an individuals life experiences....yet any quantum effects within the substructure of a brain is common to the brains of all species and all individuals.

That is what you wilfully ignore.

 

[Juma]

I did. If you look anywhere, you will see "could have chosen otherwise".

Se any definition of WILL, ryan, not "free will".

Again, it's objectively random which is exactly what an outside observer would observe.

Is it random or not? What do you think "objectively" adds here?

 

[DBT]

What was I shown to be wrong about?

And I am trying to understand how we can determine outcomes with wave function collapse theories. That is why I am confused about why you wouldn't go with a theory like string theory that has extra dimensions. At least with extra dimensions there is a chance at determining QM.

Whatever happens on that scale, you have awareness of, no control of, or ability to manipulate to your advantage. If quantum states and conditions effect non chosen changes to the workings of your brain, hence you, this is no more an example of free will than if the world was under the sway of Hard Determinism.

 

[untermensche]

I could explain what the article said about why Chomsky is wrong, but as the article already did that reasonably enough, but was ignored and dismissed, there is no reason to suppose that anything I say isn't going to be ignored and dismissed.

No you couldn't and you won't even try.

The article is total trash. Worthless.

If that article contained one good argument you would gladly make it because you have none.

I have patiently pointed out the errors of your claims over the course of this thread. You ignore everything I say.

You have done nothing but make unsupported dogmatic claims.

You don't have a clue what consciousness is. Not a clue. Not the slightest clue.

You think it has something to do with brain. But can't say what thing in the brain it is.

All you do is blabber about the tiny few things you do know, none of which explain consciousness, and then pretend you know it all. It is an amazing performance.

And my claim is totally supported by countless bits of evidence.

Every voluntary movement taken supports my claim we move our bodies with our minds, by "willing" it. The amount of evidence supporting this is enormous. Experiential evidence.

On the other side there is not a shred of evidence showing we can't move our bodies by "willing" it with our minds.

You oppose a mountain of evidence with nothing but dogmatic claims and bad understandings.

 

[ryan]

That was to illustrate that it is the architecture of a brain that determines its abilities in terms of concepts, ideas and capacity for abstract thought.

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

You are still fixated on quantum effects at the smallest scales of brain architecture as a part of the means by which a brain processes information and forms conscious experience.

It is not actually 'quantum cognition' but brain cognition....there being no form of cognition in the absence of a functional brain.

Think about a quantum computer versus a regular computer. In both computers, you have two or more objects representing bits of information. The object representing the qubit can be the same kind of object that represents the bit. The only difference is that one holds more information because of its three possible states: 1, 0, or 1 and 0 (and provided the structure does not allow decoherence). Once you entangle these objects, you get exponentially more bits of information than a classical computer, except both systems can still use the same kinds of material. So nothing should be different except for information storage and nonlinear outputs, which is exactly what quantum cognition models show.

And you are still dodging the fact that this is common to all species of brain, but it is the architecture of a functional brain that determines its capacity and attributes, ability to think, make decision, take actions and so on

I am not sure I understand what you see as a problem here. A rabbit might have the same probabilistic decisions: the carrot or run from predator; go east or west; etc.

How could you say this??? You now seem to be just ignoring the possible working model of quantum cognition where a superposition of choices are possible and await to process information. Did you read my quote from the abstract?

I can say it because different species of animals have brain architecture that generates behaviour that is specific to a species and individual variations within a species due to genetic diversity and an individuals life experiences....yet any quantum effects within the substructure of a brain is common to the brains of all species and all individuals.

That is what you wilfully ignore.

But we are talking about humans. I admit I don't understand what the problem is here.

 

[ryan]

Se any definition of WILL, ryan, not "free will".

Okay, I did; it's a different definition, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/will . What is your point Juma?

Again, it's objectively random which is exactly what an outside observer would observe.

Is it random or not? What do you think "objectively" adds here?

I guess it's a philosophical question. But the point is that it is reported as being on purpose, and that is as far as we can go scientifically.

 

[Juma]

Okay, I did; it's a different definition, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/will . What is your point Juma?

Again, it's objectively random which is exactly what an outside observer would observe.

Is it random or not? What do you think "objectively" adds here?

I guess it's a philosophical question. But the point is that it is reported as being on purpose, and that is as far as we can go scientifically.

No one has ever reported that QM wave collapse is on purpose. What are you talking about?