Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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.

Why does it have to be all or nothing with you? Clearly there would be processing too that forms the options given the input, and then maybe the consciousness (physical consciousness) has the final say.

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.

Right, but they don't know the exact mechanism that selects from the possible options. How do you know it's not the physical consciousness that selects the outcome as reported by the subjects? My argument is maybe; yours is certain.

All I have been arguing for is that the subject might have been able to choose differently.

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.

I gave an example of a rabbit choosing between A or B. What is stopping them from being in a superposition like humans might have?

 

[DBT]

Why does it have to be all or nothing with you? Clearly there would be processing too that forms the options given the input, and then maybe the consciousness (physical consciousness) has the final say.

It's not all or nothing 'with me' It's an issue of the sequence of cognition beginning with inputs or memory prompts and ending with a related action being performed. Consciousness has no independence, it is being formed and fed information as it becomes available to the system, a kind of 4 dimensional (time) virtual map of the external world and self evolved and formed for the purpose of integrated response by numerous systems.

Right, but they don't know the exact mechanism that selects from the possible options. How do you know it's not the physical consciousness that selects the outcome as reported by the subjects? My argument is maybe; yours is certain.

I gave an example of a rabbit choosing between A or B. What is stopping them from being in a superposition like humans might have?

Decisions are not related to superposition....which doesn't exist on macro scale (neural networks are whole orders of scale above quantum)...depending on the interpretation, wave collapse, many worlds, pilot waves, non local hidden variables, etc, etc, decisions are options selected on the basis of a set of criteria relating to the things of the world, people, houses, computers, cars, occupations, interests, fears, phobias and so on.

 

[ryan]

It's not all or nothing 'with me' It's an issue of the sequence of cognition beginning with inputs or memory prompts and ending with a related action being performed. Consciousness has no independence, it is being formed and fed information as it becomes available to the system, a kind of 4 dimensional (time) virtual map of the external world and self evolved and formed for the purpose of integrated response by numerous systems.

First of all, it doesn't need independence. Just being the cause of decoherence is all it needs to make the choice even though the choice is random (remember: I could have chosen differently.). Second, there is evidence and theories suggesting that the consciousness itself is rooted in QM, so it probably has some independence. Thirdly, I would argue that the choices in superposition become a part of the consciousness anyways.

Right, but they don't know the exact mechanism that selects from the possible options. How do you know it's not the physical consciousness that selects the outcome as reported by the subjects? My argument is maybe; yours is certain.

I gave an example of a rabbit choosing between A or B. What is stopping them from being in a superposition like humans might have?

Decisions are not related to superposition....

So are you outright rejecting quantum cognition and the research suggesting a possible working definition of QC?

 

[DBT]

First of all, it doesn't need independence.

That is what your remark implied.

just being the cause of decoherence is all it needs to make the choice even though the choice is random

A random change to the decision making process is not a chosen change, therefore not a freely willed change...even if will operated at neural processing of information level, which it doesn't.

So are you outright rejecting quantum cognition and the research suggesting a possible working definition of QC?

Why would you ask? I was referring to the decision making process and pointing out that any role quantum plays in forming 'quantum cognition' is common to all species of brain and all individual brains....which you still studiously avoid dealing with.

 

[ryan]

just being the cause of decoherence is all it needs to make the choice even though the choice is random

A random change to the decision making process is not a chosen change, therefore not a freely willed change...even if will operated at neural processing of information level, which it doesn't.

The parts are still me. The consciousness and the consciousness fixing the choice out of randomness are me.

So are you outright rejecting quantum cognition and the research suggesting a possible working definition of QC?

Why would you ask?

You said that decisions aren't related to superposition, but that goes against the mathematical model and working definition of quantum cognition.

I was referring to the decision making process and pointing out that any role quantum plays in forming 'quantum cognition' is common to all species of brain and all individual brains....which you still studiously avoid dealing with.

3 times I gave you the rabbit example of why I don't think this point matters.

I don't see why this issue you have here is a problem for free will. It's like if someone hundreds of years ago said that the human brain might be made up of multiple living organisms called cells while the DBT back then would reject it because other species would have them too. I don't see the problem.

 

[bigfield]

You said that decisions aren't related to superposition, but that goes against the mathematical model and working definition of quantum cognition.

That's false equivocation. Wang et al use the mathematics from quantum superposition to model cognitive processes that occur on a much larger scale; their models do not entail actual quantum superposition. When DBT said that "decisions are not related to superposition", he was clearly referring to superposition on a quantum scale:

Decisions are not related to superposition....which doesn't exist on macro scale (neural networks are whole orders of scale above quantum)

 

[ryan]

That's false equivocation. Wang et al use the mathematics from quantum superposition to model cognitive processes that occur on a much larger scale; their models do not entail actual quantum superposition. When DBT said that "decisions are not related to superposition", he was clearly referring to superposition on a quantum scale:

That's why I put "and working definition of QC". This possible working definition, if true, really would allow for a superposition of mental states. These kinds of states are simultaneous mental states of choosing between, say, A and B.

 

[Juma]

That's false equivocation. Wang et al use the mathematics from quantum superposition to model cognitive processes that occur on a much larger scale; their models do not entail actual quantum superposition. When DBT said that "decisions are not related to superposition", he was clearly referring to superposition on a quantum scale:

That's why I put "and working definition of QC". This possible working definition, if true, really would allow for a superposition of mental states. These kinds of states are simultaneous mental states of choosing between, say, A and B.

As would any neural network.... superposition of mental states isnt something specific to QM.

 

[DBT]

You said that decisions aren't related to superposition, but that goes against the mathematical model and working definition of quantum cognition.

No it doesn't. As bigfield has already pointed out your error of equivocation, I need not add anything more.

3 times I gave you the rabbit example of why I don't think this point matters.

Which happened to be wrong three out of three times.

I don't see why this issue you have here is a problem for free will. It's like if someone hundreds of years ago said that the human brain might be made up of multiple living organisms called cells while the DBT back then would reject it because other species would have them too. I don't see the problem.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said about it being the state and condition of a brain - it's overall architecture - that governs its output in relation to conscious experience, attributes and abilities, human in contrast to rabbit even though quantum particles/waves are common to both human brain structure and rabbit brain structure.

 

[ryan]

That's why I put "and working definition of QC". This possible working definition, if true, really would allow for a superposition of mental states. These kinds of states are simultaneous mental states of choosing between, say, A and B.

As would any neural network.... superposition of mental states isnt something specific to QM.

I posted a possible working definition that uses QM to explain QC.

 

[ryan]

No it doesn't. As bigfield has already pointed out your error of equivocation, I need not add anything more.

CQ uses superposition to explain decision-making. The working definition is an attempt to explain CQ using quantum mechanics.

The math is giving us a huge hint, and scientists are obviously taking the next steps.

I don't see why this issue you have here is a problem for free will. It's like if someone hundreds of years ago said that the human brain might be made up of multiple living organisms called cells while the DBT back then would reject it because other species would have them too. I don't see the problem.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said about it being the state and condition of a brain - it's overall architecture - that governs its output in relation to conscious experience, attributes and abilities, human in contrast to rabbit even though quantum particles/waves are common to both human brain structure and rabbit brain structure.

Let me see if I have this right. Your argument that humans do not have free will is that other animals don't have it either. Is this the just of it?

 

[DBT]

CQ uses superposition to explain decision-making. The working definition is an attempt to explain CQ using quantum mechanics.

The math is giving us a huge hint, and scientists are obviously taking the next steps.

You are misinterpreting the terms and references.

Neural networks are not aware of quantum states and conditions, yet alone select options on the basis of quantum states and conditions.

Rational decision making is related to information gathered from macro scale objects and their relationships, the price of housing, the need for an income, the concept of an income....an internal picture of the external world of people and things, not quantum superposition or entanglement as the decision maker.

Information is the key. As I've pointed out numerous times, the single factor of a breakdown in memory function - which is a breakdown in synaptic/dendrite connectivity - means a breakdown in the ability to make decisions, recognise objects and their relationships regardless of the presence quantum substructure before memory function breakdown and after memory function breakdown.

Let me see if I have this right. Your argument that humans do not have free will is that other animals don't have it either. Is this the just of it?

I'm saying the term 'free will' is a misnomer. A poorly defined term that conveys no useful information in regard to brain function and behaviour.

 

[ryan]

You are misinterpreting the terms and references.

Neural networks are not aware of quantum states and conditions, yet alone select options on the basis of quantum states and conditions.

That's right because they are the awareness. The nature of a me is the same nature as its mechanics (assuming monism).

Rational decision making is related to information gathered from macro scale objects and their relationships, the price of housing, the need for an income, the concept of an income....an internal picture of the external world of people and things, not quantum superposition or entanglement as the decision maker.

Yes, but there are more ambiguous kinds of decisions. I agree that there are some "definite" types of decisions. "Busemeyer and Bruza (2012) observed that human beliefs don’t jump from one state to another. Instead, people feel an ambiguous
superposition of all the options or “eigenstates.”". from http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/qcog.pdf

Please just quickly look at the first few slides of http://web.ist.utl.pt/~catarina.p.moreira/pdfs/Quantum_Models_of_Cognition_and_Decision.pdf

Information is the key. As I've pointed out numerous times, the single factor of a breakdown in memory function - which is a breakdown in synaptic/dendrite connectivity - means a breakdown in the ability to make decisions, recognise objects and their relationships regardless of the presence quantum substructure before memory function breakdown and after memory function breakdown.

You are going to hate this paper titled: "Superposition of episodic memories: overdistribution and quantum models".

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

 

[bigfield]

That's false equivocation. Wang et al use the mathematics from quantum superposition to model cognitive processes that occur on a much larger scale; their models do not entail actual quantum superposition. When DBT said that "decisions are not related to superposition", he was clearly referring to superposition on a quantum scale:

That's why I put "and working definition of QC". This possible working definition, if true, really would allow for a superposition of mental states. These kinds of states are simultaneous mental states of choosing between, say, A and B.

Fisher describes a mechanism whereby quantum entanglement between pairs of 'Posner molecules' in different neurons creates a degree of synchronisation between the two neurons: when a Posner molecule in one neuron 'melts', it increases the likelihood that it's entangled mate will also melt, and this melting increases neurotransmitter activity. Very large numbers of these pairs must be present in order to create a significant effect.

Melting a Posner molecule causes a quantum measurement in its phosphate ions. The mechanism doesn't care which quantum state each phosphate assumes; it only matters that the measurement occurs. This triggers a reaction in the entangled phosphates which may be in other Posner molecules and in other neurons.

The result is the same regardless of whether any given phosphate ion assumes state A or state B. This rules out the possibility that the quantum states of the phosphate ions represent choices.

When Fisher says this:

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

He is referring to the ability of many pairs of phosphates to form a wireless connection between two neurons.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

You already have the details. The quantum wave is a time wave and nothing else. Yes, thetime could have been other wise, but, the choice of thing is fixed.

- - - 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?

The fact that a person is blind probably has no relation to whether he can drive since he obviously uses other cues.

 

[ryan]

That's why I put "and working definition of QC". This possible working definition, if true, really would allow for a superposition of mental states. These kinds of states are simultaneous mental states of choosing between, say, A and B.

Fisher describes a mechanism whereby quantum entanglement between pairs of 'Posner molecules' in different neurons creates a degree of synchronisation between the two neurons: when a Posner molecule in one neuron 'melts', it increases the likelihood that it's entangled mate will also melt, and this melting increases neurotransmitter activity. Very large numbers of these pairs must be present in order to create a significant effect.

Melting a Posner molecule causes a quantum measurement in its phosphate ions. The mechanism doesn't care which quantum state each phosphate assumes; it only matters that the measurement occurs. This triggers a reaction in the entangled phosphates which may be in other Posner molecules and in other neurons.

The result is the same regardless of whether any given phosphate ion assumes state A or state B. This rules out the possibility that the quantum states of the phosphate ions represent choices.

All it takes is one molecule to have a major impact on the future of the system. Think about Schrodinger's cat for example. Its body goes into a superposition because of one particle.

The mind actually gets to know "what this is like" and reports on the superposition in the form of indecisiveness (the important parts are in bold),

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

When Fisher says this:

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

He is referring to the ability of many pairs of phosphates to form a wireless connection between two neurons.

But then he also says this on page 600,

"The chemical binding
and subsequent melting of two Posner molecules inside a given neuron would then influence the
probability of Posner molecules binding and melting in other neurons. This could lead to non-local
quantum correlations in the glutamate release and postsynaptic firing across multiple neurons."

 

[ryan]

great argument!

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

You already have the details. The quantum wave is a time wave and nothing else. Yes, thetime could have been other wise, but, the choice of thing is fixed.

I see. Buuuut just out of curiosity, what do you think this wave is that is dependent on time? After all, we may be talking about a particle. What do you think the wave represents?

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?

The fact that a person is blind probably has no relation to whether he can drive since he obviously uses other cues.

I think somewhere along the line we got disconnected.

 

[fromderinside]

You already have the details. The quantum wave is a time wave and nothing else. Yes, the time could have been other wise, but, the choice of thing is fixed.

I see. Buuuut just out of curiosity, what do you think this wave is that is dependent on time? After all, we may be talking about a particle. What do you think the wave represents?

The wave represents time uncertainty for the thing (energy, cat, etc) in question or if time is fixed representation uncertainty for the thing (energy,cat, etc.) in question when time is fixed (observation) for the thing. Never is there uncertainty about whether the thing is energy, cat, etc.

Restated if we know what the thing is and what is its representation is then the wave is reflecting temporal uncertainty. If we know that the time of observation is and what the thing is then the wave is reflecting representation uncertainty.

In every case there is no uncertainty about what thing is uncertain in time or observation.

 

[ryan]

I see. Buuuut just out of curiosity, what do you think this wave is that is dependent on time? After all, we may be talking about a particle. What do you think the wave represents?

The wave represents time uncertainty for the thing (energy, cat, etc) in question or if time is fixed representation uncertainty for the thing (energy,cat, etc.) in question when time is fixed (observation) for the thing.

Right, at ANY point in time there is only a probability density. And that is the point I was trying to make. That's the best science can do presently; the rest of the interpretations is up to philosophers. Many philosophers and even scientists will say that the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously.

 

[DBT]

Yes, but there are more ambiguous kinds of decisions. I agree that there are some "definite" types of decisions. "Busemeyer and Bruza (2012) observed that human beliefs don’t jump from one state to another. Instead, people feel an ambiguous
superposition of all the options or “eigenstates.”"

Superposition doesn't exist with cells, their connections or encoded memory....feeling ''ambiguous superposition of all the options'' (being indecisive) has nothing whatsoever to do with processing information on the basis of a given set of criteria, nor is the brain or any portion of the brain in a state of superposition. This only applies to wave function....not dendrites, synapses, neurons, etc.

You are going to hate this paper titled: "Superposition of episodic memories: overdistribution and quantum models".

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

There is no reason for me to hate it. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You are reading these articles through the filter of your own ideas. As previously mentioned, quantum states probably play a part in enabling connectivity and thus enabling connections to be made and memory being integrated into consciousness.

Memory content, the objects and events of the world, is not related to quantum probability, it is information encoded into cells and and their connections to the network as a whole.