Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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.

DBT, I know what you are saying here, but I think you have it all backwards. In classical mechanics, we are only our elementary parts/particles. In other words, holistic accounts like time and meaning could not exist in a discretely composed universe of individual particles. In classical mechanics, things happen bit by bit. There couldn't be knowledge of space and time because none of these bits of information hold that kind of information while the "processors" are also only spin ups and spin downs. No matter how many individual particles process themselves, truth statements, space, time, etc. cannot be real - or even an illusion. We have to ask ourselves how these particles are so unified and that provide us with more than spin up or spin down information.

Philosophers call this metaphysics, but I see no reason why entanglement can't explain the same phenomena. Entanglement seems to be our only hope in explaining what it means for a sentence to be true or to know that other things exist in space and time.

I really hope you read this and take it all in because it is at least something that shouldn't be overlooked.

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.

No, in the QC research, the subjects still made choices.

 

[ryan]

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?

If our choices are actually in a superposition and we at least feel like we made the choice under our own "will", then by scientific definition we collapsed the wave function by the choice we made.

 

[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?

If our choices are actually in a superposition and we at least feel like we made the choice under our own "will", then by scientific definition we collapsed the wave function by the choice we made.

But that doesnt make the will free at all.

It seems that you think that superpositions means that anything can happen but that would be represented by a flat distribution which isnt useful at all. To be useful for a choice the distribution must have a single very thin peak corresponding to the choice.

 

[ryan]

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?

If our choices are actually in a superposition and we at least feel like we made the choice under our own "will", then by scientific definition we collapsed the wave function by the choice we made.

But that doesnt make the will free at all.

It seems that you think that superpositions means that anything can happen but that would be represented by a flat distribution which isnt useful at all. To be useful for a choice the distribution must have a single very thin peak corresponding to the choice.

Are you talking about peak on a graph with the y axis having the probability and the x axis as the choices?

 

[DBT]

Whatever happens on that scale, you have awareness of, no control of, or ability to manipulate to your advantage.

DBT, I know what you are saying here, but I think you have it all backwards. In classical mechanics, we are only our elementary parts/particles. In other words, holistic accounts like time and meaning could not exist in a discretely composed universe of individual particles. In classical mechanics, things happen bit by bit. There couldn't be knowledge of space and time because none of these bits of information hold that kind of information while the "processors" are also only spin ups and spin downs. No matter how many individual particles process themselves, truth statements, space, time, etc. cannot be real - or even an illusion. We have to ask ourselves how these particles are so unified and that provide us with more than spin up or spin down information.

Philosophers call this metaphysics, but I see no reason why entanglement can't explain the same phenomena. Entanglement seems to be our only hope in explaining what it means for a sentence to be true or to know that other things exist in space and time.

I really hope you read this and take it all in because it is at least something that shouldn't be overlooked.

I have read it. It is wrong. Your tone is designed to defect from the difficulties of your claims.

What you say still avoids the central issue that you are not aware of wave collapse, depending on you interpretation of QM, splits in time lines (MW), nor are you, the brain, observer or any way you like to put it, able to influence events on quantum scale in order to benefit or suit your will, decision making or action that follow.

And of course you still studiously avoid the fact that quantum activity lies at the smallest scales of all brains, all species and all individuals, yet behaviour is specific to brain architecture and condition and not to the fact that quantum activity is common to all at that scale.

No, in the QC research, the subjects still made choices.

The subjects made choices because the brain that produces both the 'subject' and the necessary information processing has the necessary neural wiring, the architecture and not because quantum effects may be utilised by a brain at synaptic clefts and microtubules.....which is common to all brains, all species, all individuals.

That is what you need to face, ryan.

 

[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?

If our choices are actually in a superposition and we at least feel like we made the choice under our own "will", then by scientific definition we collapsed the wave function by the choice we made.

But that doesnt make the will free at all.

It seems that you think that superpositions means that anything can happen but that would be represented by a flat distribution which isnt useful at all. To be useful for a choice the distribution must have a single very thin peak corresponding to the choice.

Are you talking about peak on a graph with the y axis having the probability and the x axis as the choices?

Yes.

 

[ryan]

DBT, I know what you are saying here, but I think you have it all backwards. In classical mechanics, we are only our elementary parts/particles. In other words, holistic accounts like time and meaning could not exist in a discretely composed universe of individual particles. In classical mechanics, things happen bit by bit. There couldn't be knowledge of space and time because none of these bits of information hold that kind of information while the "processors" are also only spin ups and spin downs. No matter how many individual particles process themselves, truth statements, space, time, etc. cannot be real - or even an illusion. We have to ask ourselves how these particles are so unified and that provide us with more than spin up or spin down information.

Philosophers call this metaphysics, but I see no reason why entanglement can't explain the same phenomena. Entanglement seems to be our only hope in explaining what it means for a sentence to be true or to know that other things exist in space and time.

I really hope you read this and take it all in because it is at least something that shouldn't be overlooked.

I have read it. It is wrong. Your tone is designed to defect from the difficulties of your claims.

What you say still avoids the central issue that you are not aware of wave collapse, depending on you interpretation of QM, splits in time lines (MW), nor are you, the brain, observer or any way you like to put it, able to influence events on quantum scale in order to benefit or suit your will, decision making or action that follow.

See bottom of this post.

And of course you still studiously avoid the fact that quantum activity lies at the smallest scales of all brains, all species and all individuals, yet behaviour is specific to brain architecture and condition and not to the fact that quantum activity is common to all at that scale.

Since it doesn't seem like you read my last post, I will post this part again.

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.

No, in the QC research, the subjects still made choices.

The subjects made choices because the brain that produces both the 'subject' and the necessary information processing has the necessary neural wiring, the architecture and not because quantum effects may be utilised by a brain at synaptic clefts and microtubules.....which is common to all brains, all species, all individuals.

This is the reverse of the composition fallacy. You are saying that the part must contain all properties of the whole that it's a part of. But we know that does not make sense for most complex structures or processes.

 

[ryan]

Are you talking about peak on a graph with the y axis having the probability and the x axis as the choices?

Yes.

A thin high spike would almost be like classical mechanics. Why would minimizing the possibilities add to the freedom?

 

[DBT]

This is the reverse of the composition fallacy. You are saying that the part must contain all properties of the whole that it's a part of. But we know that does not make sense for most complex structures or processes.

No it's not. It's not what I said, implied or even suggested. And you still avoid what I actually said, rather presenting what you happen to have interpreted incorrectly.

Can you please face up to these points and deal with them without shifting the emphasis into a different direction;

You, conscious self, are not aware of wave collapse, depending on your interpretation of QM, wave function either collapses (Copenhagen) splits in time lines (MW), etc. Nor are you, the brain, observer, conscious self, or any way you like to put it, able to influence events on quantum scale in order to benefit or suit your will, decision making or action that follow.

Also, that quantum activity lies at the smallest scales of all brains, all species and all individuals, yet behaviour is specific to brain architecture and condition and not to the fact that quantum activity is common to all at that scale.

Don't avoid this, ryan.

 

[Juma]

Yes.

A thin high spike would almost be like classical mechanics. Why would minimizing the possibilities add to the freedom?

Because randomness != control.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

Simper explanation. Get rid of time as a dimension.  The End of Time (book)

 

[ryan]

This is the reverse of the composition fallacy. You are saying that the part must contain all properties of the whole that it's a part of. But we know that does not make sense for most complex structures or processes.

No it's not. It's not what I said, implied or even suggested. And you still avoid what I actually said, rather presenting what you happen to have interpreted incorrectly.

Can you please face up to these points and deal with them without shifting the emphasis into a different direction;

You, conscious self, are not aware of wave collapse, depending on your interpretation of QM, wave function either collapses (Copenhagen) splits in time lines (MW), etc. Nor are you, the brain, observer, conscious self, or any way you like to put it, able to influence events on quantum scale in order to benefit or suit your will, decision making or action that follow.

According to the research, subjects may have a choice between A or B. Scientifically speaking, one may chose, say, B. The subject will report making that choice; in other words it wasn't an unconscious mistake or a glitch. So we can bypass the details on how this strange wholeness arises from the parts and just stick with current scientific definitions.

Like I tried to say before, we must assume a whole entity exists with the parts or nothing could be known to exist. There would only be individually discrete particles that carry 1 bit of information. Each particle will process themselves two bits at a time with no carryover of information about the environment and the system as a whole. The parts must give rise to a whole. This whole only makes physical sense using largely entangled systems and a discrete discontinuity around them. Or you could go with metaphysics, but that's highly uncertain philosophy.

I really hope you read the last paragraph and understand what I am saying.

Also, that quantum activity lies at the smallest scales of all brains, all species and all individuals, yet behaviour is specific to brain architecture and condition and not to the fact that quantum activity is common to all at that scale.

I have told you in the last 2 posts that I don't understand how this presents a problem. Why does it matter if other brains of other species have it? And I gave an example with arabbit in my last 2 posts, but you didn't comment on it either time.

 

[ryan]

A thin high spike would almost be like classical mechanics. Why would minimizing the possibilities add to the freedom?

Because randomness != control.

If I had free will, would you be able to predict what I do or would it appear random?

I would still have control, albeit blind control.

 

[ryan]

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.

Simper explanation. Get rid of time as a dimension.  The End of Time (book)

I am not saying free will must exist; I am just saying that there is reason to believe it might exist.

 

[Juma]

Because randomness != control.

If I had free will, would you be able to predict what I do or would it appear random?

I would still have control, albeit blind control.

As a living being in the real world your life depends that your brain has control.

"Blind control" is not a coherent concept at all.

 

[ryan]

If I had free will, would you be able to predict what I do or would it appear random?

I would still have control, albeit blind control.

As a living being in the real world your life depends that your brain has control.

If my choices are purely based on survival or depend on X, then I do not have free will.

"Blind control" is not a coherent concept at all.

Sure it is. A blind person can still drive/control a car.

 

[fromderinside]

Simper explanation. Get rid of time as a dimension.  The End of Time (book)

I am not saying free will must exist; I am just saying that there is reason to believe it might exist.

Bastardizing QM in an attempt to put forward a 'a reason to believe' is not actually presenting a reason.

 

[fromderinside]

"Blind control" is not a coherent concept at all.

Sure it is. A blind person can still drive/control a car.

Being blind and controlling a car are not causally linked. So your response tells us you are still searching for the notion of a coherent concept.

 

[ryan]

I am not saying free will must exist; I am just saying that there is reason to believe it might exist.

Bastardizing QM in an attempt to put forward a 'a reason to believe' is not actually presenting a reason.

great argument!

The creative side of me appreciates your poetic dressing. But the substantial and analytic side of me wants some details.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it is. A blind person can still drive/control a car.

Being blind and controlling a car are not causally linked. So your response tells us you are still searching for the notion of a coherent concept.

wu?

 

[DBT]

According to the research, subjects may have a choice between A or B. Scientifically speaking, one may chose, say, B. The subject will report making that choice; in other words it wasn't an unconscious mistake or a glitch. So we can bypass the details on how this strange wholeness arises from the parts and just stick with current scientific definitions.

Like I tried to say before, we must assume a whole entity exists with the parts or nothing could be known to exist. There would only be individually discrete particles that carry 1 bit of information. Each particle will process themselves two bits at a time with no carryover of information about the environment and the system as a whole. The parts must give rise to a whole. This whole only makes physical sense using largely entangled systems and a discrete discontinuity around them. Or you could go with metaphysics, but that's highly uncertain philosophy.

I really hope you read the last paragraph and understand what I am saying.

You misinterpret the mechanism of information processing if you believe that it is entangled state or superposition that effects rational outcomes regardless of the actual processing performed by neural networks, that being their function.

That '' subjects may have a choice between A or B'' says nothing whatsoever about what happens from the moment that the options enter the system via the senses, propagated throughout various regions of the brain, achieving readiness potential and formed as conscious awareness of these option with the related thoughts and action.

I have told you in the last 2 posts that I don't understand how this presents a problem. Why does it matter if other brains of other species have it? And I gave an example with arabbit in my last 2 posts, but you didn't comment on it either time.

I thought the problem was obvious, if quantum substructure is common to all species of brains and all individual brains, yet all species of brains produce abilities and behaviours that are specific to the neural architecture of their brain and individual variations correspond to genetic diversity and personal experience (memory function) the quantum substructure, being common to all species and individual brains, is not the agency processing information and producing behaviour, but the neural architecture of a brain, albeit utilising quantum effects at synaptic junctions, etc, to perform its function as an information processor.

This is why your claim fails.