Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

No, YOUR model is not based on observation. It is based on misinterpretation of unrelated models.

 

[ryan]

A quantum fluctuation is not a decision.

I agree. A decision requires more. Quantum decoherence is just part of the mechanism.

A quantum fluctuation disrupting the normal course of option selection by the brain resulting in a random selection, like a random number generator, is not itself a decision.

That's your definition of normal. Meanwhile, it could have been the norm all along.

Please see, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

You need to provide quotes that you believe support what you are arguing. Or explain in your own words how a body of information that is a memory of a past event or experience is in a state of superposition like a photon passing through both slits.

Just read the abstract to get the idea.

Why does it matter whether its classical mechanics or quantum mechanics going on inside the brain? It's still the brain. You are just not used to thinking of the decision-making process this way.

The brain has no control over disruptions to its architecture, except for some degree of plasticity, re-routing, etc). Brain damage altering a brain is still 'the brain' but now it works differently.

DBT, it comes down to what nature really is; it's probabilistic. Some outcomes/decisions have higher probabilities than others. As the probability of choosing A over B gets closer to 0.5 instead of a more lopsided ratio closer to 0 or 1, then something in your preconception of decision making sees it as problematic when it might have been the norm all along.

 

[ryan]

I think it's a bigger system than that. In the abstract, it says,


"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.".

The beginning of the paragraph explains how one neuron can be influenced to fire, and the second part explains a much more complex system of entanglement. Then page 599 has, "The chemical binding of multiple Posner molecules with entangled nuclear spins might allow for
complex quantum processing". I take this to mean that the proposed quantum process is responsible for the mathematical models of Wang's research of QC, especially since Fisher calls this a working definition of QC.

You have made the same mistake repeatedly: you take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context, and unsurprisingly you misunderstand the claims Fisher is making. In this instance, you are taking the term "quantum processing" to mean something other than Fisher means. In the context of the article, "quantum processing" refers simply to a proposed mechanism whereby neurons may be remotely connected to each other by many pairs of entangled Posner molecules.

I think this explains better how the proposed quantum processing goes far beyond two entangled phosphorus particles:

"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.".

So I think he used just two neurons as a simple example which set up the idea of a more complex possibility.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

But he describes in his paper that it is a "working definition" of quantum cognition. I imagine that the whole point of the paper is to explain the mechanisms behind the probabilistic and non-classically explained outcomes of quantum cognition.

 

[ryan]

The discussion has to touch reality in some way, or it is not science in any way.

You can't say for instance: The ability to read minds is due to quantum entanglement, without any physiological mechanism in which this, not could occur, but IS occurring.

Wild speculation has to be grounded in some way to some aspect of reality. Or it is meaningless.

Let me start with what I trust is a proper definition, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon".

That's not a definition of a biological mechanism.

This is exactly my problem with you. I provide a quote from a reference from an institute specializing in cognition research, and you just say "That's not a definition of a biological mechanism" with no reference to back it up. This is incredibly arrogant and probably ignorant.

I see no point to continue this discussion with you.

 

[ryan]

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

No, YOUR model is not based on observation. It is based on misinterpretation of unrelated models.

Now you are saying that "my model" is not based on observation when you were referring to quantum cognition in the post before.

 

[Juma]

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

No, YOUR model is not based on observation. It is based on misinterpretation of unrelated models.

Now you are saying that "my model" is not based on observation when you were referring to quantum cognition in the post before.

Yes? Do you hallucinate a contradiction?

 

[untermensche]

The discussion has to touch reality in some way, or it is not science in any way.

You can't say for instance: The ability to read minds is due to quantum entanglement, without any physiological mechanism in which this, not could occur, but IS occurring.

Wild speculation has to be grounded in some way to some aspect of reality. Or it is meaningless.

That's not a definition of a biological mechanism.

This is exactly my problem with you. I provide a quote from a reference from an institute specializing in cognition research, and you just say "That's not a definition of a biological mechanism" with no reference to back it up. This is incredibly arrogant and probably ignorant.

I see no point to continue this discussion with you.

Because you have no argument.

This is comic book nonsense. Absolute rubbish. As bad as it gets.

You ignore the mountains of arguments against it, both scientific and philosophical.

But go ahead make a fool of yourself with nonsense that is going nowhere.

Children and their toys.

 

[ryan]

This is exactly my problem with you. I provide a quote from a reference from an institute specializing in cognition research, and you just say "That's not a definition of a biological mechanism" with no reference to back it up. This is incredibly arrogant and probably ignorant.

I see no point to continue this discussion with you.

Because you have no argument.

This is comic book nonsense. Absolute rubbish. As bad as it gets.

You ignore the mountains of arguments against it, both scientific and philosophical.

But go ahead make a fool of yourself with nonsense that is going nowhere.

Children and their toys.

This is the worst discussion I have ever had on TF.

There needs to be a spinning head emoji.

 

[ryan]

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

No, YOUR model is not based on observation. It is based on misinterpretation of unrelated models.

Now you are saying that "my model" is not based on observation when you were referring to quantum cognition in the post before.

Yes? Do you hallucinate a contradiction?

Juma: QC has not been observed
ryan: It's a model based on observation
Juma: No, your model has not been observed
ryan: you say "my model" isn't observed, but before you said the QC model
Juma: Yes? Is there a contradiction?
ryan: [head is spinning]

 

[Juma]

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

No, YOUR model is not based on observation. It is based on misinterpretation of unrelated models.

Now you are saying that "my model" is not based on observation when you were referring to quantum cognition in the post before.

Yes? Do you hallucinate a contradiction?

Juma: QC has not been observed
ryan: It's a model based on observation
Juma: No, your model has not been observed
ryan: you say "my model" isn't observed, but before you said the QC model
Juma: Yes? Is there a contradiction?
ryan: [head is spinning]

so now you call the model "QC"? earlier you said QC was the phenomenon.

 

[bigfield]

You have made the same mistake repeatedly: you take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context, and unsurprisingly you misunderstand the claims Fisher is making. In this instance, you are taking the term "quantum processing" to mean something other than Fisher means. In the context of the article, "quantum processing" refers simply to a proposed mechanism whereby neurons may be remotely connected to each other by many pairs of entangled Posner molecules.

I think this explains better how the proposed quantum processing goes far beyond two entangled phosphorus particles:

"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.".

So I think he used just two neurons as a simple example which set up the idea of a more complex possibility.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

But he describes in his paper that it is a "working definition" of quantum cognition. I imagine that the whole point of the paper is to explain the mechanisms behind the probabilistic and non-classically explained outcomes of quantum cognition.

You continue to take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context. The article doesn't support your speculations.

 

[ryan]

I think this explains better how the proposed quantum processing goes far beyond two entangled phosphorus particles:

"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.".

So I think he used just two neurons as a simple example which set up the idea of a more complex possibility.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

But he describes in his paper that it is a "working definition" of quantum cognition. I imagine that the whole point of the paper is to explain the mechanisms behind the probabilistic and non-classically explained outcomes of quantum cognition.

You continue to take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context. The article doesn't support your speculations.

Then why would he put this at the end and right after explaining how it would work with only 2 neurons,

"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."?

Do you really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement?

 

[DBT]

I think this explains better how the proposed quantum processing goes far beyond two entangled phosphorus particles:

"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.".

So I think he used just two neurons as a simple example which set up the idea of a more complex possibility.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

But he describes in his paper that it is a "working definition" of quantum cognition. I imagine that the whole point of the paper is to explain the mechanisms behind the probabilistic and non-classically explained outcomes of quantum cognition.

You continue to take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context. The article doesn't support your speculations.

Then why would he put this at the end and right after explaining how it would work with only 2 neurons,

"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."?

Do you really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement?

Makes no difference to your position, ryan, because this just enables information processing connectivity. The actual information processing entails correlation of bodies of information. Information from the senses with information from memory in order to build a mental representation of the external world in relation to self, forming thought and response, etc.

 

[DBT]

Just read the abstract to get the idea.

The abstract doesn't support your contention. That's why I asked you to explain why you believe it does in your own words, providing your own argument.

DBT, it comes down to what nature really is; it's probabilistic. Some outcomes/decisions have higher probabilities than others. As the probability of choosing A over B gets closer to 0.5 instead of a more lopsided ratio closer to 0 or 1, then something in your preconception of decision making sees it as problematic when it might have been the norm all along.

Decisions are not based on probability, but criteria. People [the brain] decides on the basis of a set of criteria. The probability of the decision rests on the options being presented.

If your pants happened to catch on fire while stoking the campfire one night, it's a high probability that you would be firstly, startled, secondly, try to beat out the flames with whatever means at hand. That you would ignore the smoke, flames and heat coming from your burning trousers is extremely low...

 

[bigfield]

I think this explains better how the proposed quantum processing goes far beyond two entangled phosphorus particles:

"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.".

So I think he used just two neurons as a simple example which set up the idea of a more complex possibility.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

But he describes in his paper that it is a "working definition" of quantum cognition. I imagine that the whole point of the paper is to explain the mechanisms behind the probabilistic and non-classically explained outcomes of quantum cognition.

You continue to take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context. The article doesn't support your speculations.

Then why would he put this at the end and right after explaining how it would work with only 2 neurons,

"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."?

Do you really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement?

That's correct.

 

[ryan]

You continue to take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context. The article doesn't support your speculations.

Then why would he put this at the end and right after explaining how it would work with only 2 neurons,

"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."?

Do you really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement?

Makes no difference to your position, ryan, because this just enables information processing connectivity. The actual information processing entails correlation of bodies of information. Information from the senses with information from memory in order to build a mental representation of the external world in relation to self, forming thought and response, etc.

Yes, of course we use information from the senses and memory. We will think of, say, 2 options based on information we have acquired through the senses and memories. This can be something like choosing between 2 investments, each with their pros and cons, or it could just come down to someone asking us to choose between A or B.

 

[ryan]

The abstract doesn't support your contention. That's why I asked you to explain why you believe it does in your own words, providing your own argument.

You said, "The body of information that is a memory is no more in a state of superposition than the story line of a novel.".

The first sentence of the research claims, "Memory exhibits episodic superposition, an analog of the quantum superposition of physical states". And yes I know this is just an analog of a physical superposition, but it might as well be physical because we are talking about the consciousness and the discontinuous layers embodying it that act like a superposition. And I get the feeling that we are going to read any day now a physical explanation of the superposition involving QM.

DBT, it comes down to what nature really is; it's probabilistic. Some outcomes/decisions have higher probabilities than others. As the probability of choosing A over B gets closer to 0.5 instead of a more lopsided ratio closer to 0 or 1, then something in your preconception of decision making sees it as problematic when it might have been the norm all along.

Decisions are not based on probability, but criteria. People [the brain] decides on the basis of a set of criteria. The probability of the decision rests on the options being presented.

You say this, but right below you immediately contradict yourself.

If your pants happened to catch on fire while stoking the campfire one night, it's a high probability that you would be firstly, startled, secondly, try to beat out the flames with whatever means at hand. That you would ignore the smoke, flames and heat coming from your burning trousers is extremely low...

You give this extreme example, but I have told you many times that this about choices that are less clear/obvious. We are "hardwired" to a certain extent, but you know that these are not the kinds of choices I am talking about.

If you ultimately believe that choices might be truly objectively probabilistic, then that's really all I have been saying. This to me is science leaving the door open for allowing the possibility that a person could have chosen differently.

 

[DBT]

You said, "The body of information that is a memory is no more in a state of superposition than the story line of a novel.".

The first sentence of the research claims, "Memory exhibits episodic superposition, an analog of the quantum superposition of physical states". And yes I know this is just an analog of a physical superposition, but it might as well be physical because we are talking about the consciousness and the discontinuous layers embodying it that act like a superposition. And I get the feeling that we are going to read any day now a physical explanation of the superposition involving QM.

The terminology does not mean that the information stored as memory is actually in superposition like a photon fired through a double slit.

You need to be careful when confronted with figurative analogies and literal analogies.

Memories represent actual events and not quantum states. If you slipped and banged your knee yesterday, the memory being formed should represent that literal objective event.

You say this, but right below you immediately contradict yourself.

There is no contradiction. You failed to understand my point. I said that decisions are determined by information exchange within neural networks and that the probability of one decision being made over another is based on the parameters of the given options and not how neural networks process information (a brain may be dysfunctional, therefore irrational).

I even gave you an example with the pants catching fire reaction probability.

There is no superposition of options, you feel the heat and you react in an entirely predicable way. Probability is assigned to nature of the options in relation to what we understand about behaviour, and not quantum superposition.

If you ultimately believe that choices might be truly objectively probabilistic, then that's really all I have been saying. This to me is science leaving the door open for allowing the possibility that a person could have chosen differently.

Decision making is based on an information exchange between neurons, their structures and connections...information related to the actual objects and events of the external world as defined by memory. Memory being the prime determinant of decisions made, or not made. No memory function equals no decisions possible, no recognition and no self awareness.

 

[ryan]

The terminology does not mean that the information stored as memory is actually in superposition like a photon fired through a double slit.

That's right as I said in the last post to you.

Did you look at the slides? The slides explain that the choices really are in a superposition even though they may or may not actually be in a superposition stemming from QM.

I don't know how this would work mechanically. But if certain quantum processes are going on in the brain, as Fisher points out is possible, then it would seem entirely possible that some choices could have been different.

You need to be careful when confronted with figurative analogies and literal analogies.

It's not a figurative analog; it's a mathematical analog. When they say "analog", they are not talking about poetry.

Memories represent actual events and not quantum states. If you slipped and banged your knee yesterday, the memory being formed should represent that literal objective event.

Why can't memories be in quantum states? Sometimes our memories fail us even though we still think we are correct. We are so far from perfect or close to perfect calculators, computers. The other day I actually wrote down 6 x 8 = 40. For about 10 seconds I felt I was correct; it was not a glitch that felt out of my control like a person with Turrets Syndrome.

On the bright side, the answer to what can save us from ourselves might be randomness. Random forces allow us to see other possibilities that may be better than what we know.

You say this, but right below you immediately contradict yourself.

There is no contradiction. You failed to understand my point. I said that decisions are determined by information exchange within neural networks and that the probability of one decision being made over another is based on the parameters of the given options and not how neural networks process information (a brain may be dysfunctional, therefore irrational).

I even gave you an example with the pants catching fire reaction probability.

There is no superposition of options, you feel the heat and you react in an entirely predicable way. Probability is assigned to nature of the options in relation to what we understand about behaviour, and not quantum superposition.

You said, "Decisions are not based on probability, but criteria. People [the brain] decides on the basis of a set of criteria. The probability of the decision rests on the options being presented.".

Then you said, "If your pants happened to catch on fire while stoking the campfire one night, it's a high probability that you would be firstly, startled, secondly, try to beat out the flames with whatever means at hand.".

Keeping this in the scope of science, what else is there other than probabilities? From what I understand, probabilities trump physical laws. Not even the laws of thermodynamics can escape the probabilistic nature of reality. If event A causes one to choose B or C, what is a better way to describe and predict B or C than using accurate probabilities? The physics of why B is more likely than C is interesting and useful for representing other kinds of probabilities, but for that specific system in that moment we can only go with a probability. So far, it is generally agreed upon that probabilities can explain how the entire universe has been born the way it was and why it evolves the way it does.

If you ultimately believe that choices might be truly objectively probabilistic, then that's really all I have been saying. This to me is science leaving the door open for allowing the possibility that a person could have chosen differently.

Decision making is based on an information exchange between neurons, their structures and connections...information related to the actual objects and events of the external world as defined by memory. Memory being the prime determinant of decisions made, or not made. No memory function equals no decisions possible, no recognition and no self awareness.

But why does my argument suddenly turn into "no memory function". You are in a different argument than the one I am in, seriously. They don't fully understand how memories are brought up and selected; I don't know where your false sense of certainty comes from.

It comes down to whether or not we are broken classical computers or quantum computers - that's it. The former is completely deterministic the latter isn't. Either way we will still have the same false sense of control.

 

[DBT]

That's right as I said in the last post to you.

Did you look at the slides? The slides explain that the choices really are in a superposition even though they may or may not actually be in a superposition stemming from QM.

I don't know how this would work mechanically. But if certain quantum processes are going on in the brain, as Fisher points out is possible, then it would seem entirely possible that some choices could have been different.

Makes no difference. You don't get to choose the effects or the outcome.

You need to be careful when confronted with figurative analogies and literal analogies.

If the information relating to two or more options, to buy this model car or that model car, you like them both, is too close decisions being made is too close to make a decisive selection...this is not a ''superposition'' of decisions. It is ambiguity.

Some of these researchers so love their own jargon that it appears to verge onto equivocation.

It's not a figurative analog; it's a mathematical analog. When they say "analog", they are not talking about poetry.

It is an analogy. As an analogy, as a form of jargon, open to equivocation, it may used by some to support an argument that it doesn't actually support.

Yours in this instance.

Why can't memories be in quantum states? Sometimes our memories fail us even though we still think we are correct. We are so far from perfect or close to perfect calculators, computers. The other day I actually wrote down 6 x 8 = 40. For about 10 seconds I felt I was correct; it was not a glitch that felt out of my control like a person with Turrets Syndrome.

As I already said, memories are bodies of information that represent actual things, events, concepts, ideas. That doesn't mean the brain has perfect encoding of memory or perfect recall. It does not.

But not because the information content of memory is in a state of superposition like a photon fired through a double slit, but because of failures and glitches in encoding and connectivity...neural tangles, plaques, etc, breaking down memory functionality.

On the bright side, the answer to what can save us from ourselves might be randomness. Random forces allow us to see other possibilities that may be better than what we know.

Forget about it. Randomness doesn't help you at all. You are as much a puppet of random forces/events as with determinism, just that the former is not a fixed course.

I'll leave it there. These posts are getting too large, and repetitive.