Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

We speak of the consciousness as a whole. What any specific part of the consciousness is doing is not necessarily what the consciousness is doing. The clock tells time, but one of its cogs don't. My consciousness makes the choice, but the QM alone doesn't make a choice. It's about not committing the fallacy of composition.

Consciousness is precisely what brain activity is doing when it shapes and forms consciousness, nothing more, nothing less.

Consciousness has no life or existence of its own, consciousness/mind is one of the functions of a brain.

 

[ryan]

We speak of the consciousness as a whole. What any specific part of the consciousness is doing is not necessarily what the consciousness is doing. The clock tells time, but one of its cogs don't. My consciousness makes the choice, but the QM alone doesn't make a choice. It's about not committing the fallacy of composition.

Consciousness is precisely what brain activity is doing when it shapes and forms consciousness, nothing more, nothing less.

Consciousness has no life or existence of its own, consciousness/mind is one of the functions of a brain.

What you say here doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted of my post. And the middle part of my post agrees with what you say here. I am very confused.

Also, the clock is analogous to the consciousness, and the cog was analogous to QM mechanisms.

 

[DBT]

Consciousness is precisely what brain activity is doing when it shapes and forms consciousness, nothing more, nothing less.

Consciousness has no life or existence of its own, consciousness/mind is one of the functions of a brain.

What you say here doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted of my post. And the middle part of my post agrees with what you say here. I am very confused.

Also, the clock is analogous to the consciousness, and the cog was analogous to QM mechanisms.

You appeared to be implying some degree of autonomy for consciousness. Nor do non chosen, uncontrolled, quantum effects help establish a case for free will, if free will is defined as the ability to have done otherwise in the same conditions...which doesn't work because the physical/quantum/neural conditions that produced a bad decision, a decision that is regretted a moment after having been made, could have been avoided in that moment in time, it would have been avoided in that moment in time and not regretted a moment later.

 

[ryan]

What you say here doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you quoted of my post. And the middle part of my post agrees with what you say here. I am very confused.

Also, the clock is analogous to the consciousness, and the cog was analogous to QM mechanisms.

You appeared to be implying some degree of autonomy for consciousness. Nor do non chosen, uncontrolled, quantum effects help establish a case for free will, if free will is defined as the ability to have done otherwise in the same conditions...which doesn't work because the physical/quantum/neural conditions that produced a bad decision, a decision that is regretted a moment after having been made, could have been avoided in that moment in time, it would have been avoided in that moment in time and not regretted a moment later.

I have answered these concerns already. We have already been down this road. We are now going in very large circles.

 

[DBT]

You appeared to be implying some degree of autonomy for consciousness. Nor do non chosen, uncontrolled, quantum effects help establish a case for free will, if free will is defined as the ability to have done otherwise in the same conditions...which doesn't work because the physical/quantum/neural conditions that produced a bad decision, a decision that is regretted a moment after having been made, could have been avoided in that moment in time, it would have been avoided in that moment in time and not regretted a moment later.

I have answered these concerns already. We have already been down this road. We are now going in very large circles.

Your initial remark is not quite true (technically you have 'answered,' but your answers did not actually address these issues)....but your last remark is quite true.

 

[ryan]

I have answered these concerns already. We have already been down this road. We are now going in very large circles.

Your initial remark is not quite true (technically you have 'answered,' but your answers did not actually address these issues)....but your last remark is quite true.

Okay, let's set some general parameters to simplify the our discussion. First there is unconscious decision making (e.g. readiness potential) in some cases. Then there is conscious decision-making (contemplation). Then there is the decision.

If there are QM mechanisms in the consciousness such as Posner molecules or microtubules, then it would seem very possible that the decision could have been different. And the kinds of the decisions that the Posner molecules help make are not necessarily regrettable decisions as per QC research. The subjects were making tough/close decisions, not decisions that they would feel sure about either way.

 

[Juma]

If there are QM mechanisms in the consciousness such as Posner molecules or microtubules, then it would seem very possible that the decision could have been different. .

No. As has been properly argumented for by me and ignored by you.

 

[ryan]

If there are QM mechanisms in the consciousness such as Posner molecules or microtubules, then it would seem very possible that the decision could have been different. .

No. As has been properly argumented for by me and ignored by you.

So in this murky and very unclear science of the brain and assuming the possibility of QM mechanisms, you are going to say that we know enough about any particular brain to say that only one possible choice could have been made? That is like saying that an autopiloted car partly controlled by QM variable combined with other unknown factors could not have made a different turn at some point. How on earth do you think you could possible know this for sure? You don't know it, and you can't know it, given the current state of cognitive/behavior science.

 

[DBT]

Your initial remark is not quite true (technically you have 'answered,' but your answers did not actually address these issues)....but your last remark is quite true.

Okay, let's set some general parameters to simplify the our discussion. First there is unconscious decision making (e.g. readiness potential) in some cases. Then there is conscious decision-making (contemplation). Then there is the decision.

That's not right. Unconscious information processing, inputs, propagation, memory integration, etc, achieves readiness potential and is then made available to conscious activity in the form of information feed into the 'stream' of consciousness, altering consciousness as information becomes available.

If there are QM mechanisms in the consciousness such as Posner molecules or microtubules, then it would seem very possible that the decision could have been different. And the kinds of the decisions that the Posner molecules help make are not necessarily regrettable decisions as per QC research. The subjects were making tough/close decisions, not decisions that they would feel sure about either way.

Posner molecules do not make decisions. Nor do microtubules. You are misconstruing the articles.

 

[Juma]

No. As has been properly argumented for by me and ignored by you.

So in this murky and very unclear science of the brain and assuming the possibility of QM mechanisms, you are going to say that we know enough about any particular brain to say that only one possible choice could have been made? That is like saying that an autopiloted car partly controlled by QM variable combined with other unknown factors could not have made a different turn at some point. How on earth do you think you could possible know this for sure? You don't know it, and you can't know it, given the current state of cognitive/behavior science.

1) Only one decision WAS made. Since we cannot go back in time and change the decision it could not be otherwise. The probability for things that has already happened are 1.

2) decisions are not randomized: i dont randomly stay home from work, i does not randomly decide to walk the streed naked.
My action are well inside what I sm expected to do. I do not suddenly turned crooked and try to earn fast money by robbing people.
If we had free will we wouldnt be so predictible. We would be maniacs doing totally unpredictible stuff.

 

[ryan]

Okay, let's set some general parameters to simplify the our discussion. First there is unconscious decision making (e.g. readiness potential) in some cases. Then there is conscious decision-making (contemplation). Then there is the decision.

That's not right. Unconscious information processing, inputs, propagation, memory integration, etc, achieves readiness potential and is then made available to conscious activity in the form of information feed into the 'stream' of consciousness, altering consciousness as information becomes available.

What I put is for the kinds of decisions that I am talking about, not the easily made decisions.

If there are QM mechanisms in the consciousness such as Posner molecules or microtubules, then it would seem very possible that the decision could have been different. And the kinds of the decisions that the Posner molecules help make are not necessarily regrettable decisions as per QC research. The subjects were making tough/close decisions, not decisions that they would feel sure about either way.

Posner molecules do not make decisions. Nor do microtubules. You are misconstruing the articles.

Hhhhh, your argument here is why I gave the clock analogy. The cog in the clock (QM mechanism) does not give the time (does not make the decision). For the last time, I am not saying that the Posner molecules make the decision; it's them and more that make the decision. So the decision still could have been different.

 

[ryan]

So in this murky and very unclear science of the brain and assuming the possibility of QM mechanisms, you are going to say that we know enough about any particular brain to say that only one possible choice could have been made? That is like saying that an autopiloted car partly controlled by QM variable combined with other unknown factors could not have made a different turn at some point. How on earth do you think you could possible know this for sure? You don't know it, and you can't know it, given the current state of cognitive/behavior science.

1) Only one decision WAS made. Since we cannot go back in time and change the decision it could not be otherwise. The probability for things that has already happened are 1.

That's not what is meant. If you could time travel, it could have been different. And science has not yet ruled out time travel anyways.

2) decisions are not randomized: i dont randomly stay home from work, i does not randomly decide to walk the streed naked.
My action are well inside what I sm expected to do. I do not suddenly turned crooked and try to earn fast money by robbing people.
If we had free will we wouldnt be so predictible. We would be maniacs doing totally unpredictible stuff.

This is frustrating. I made 100's of posts explaining why this argument isn't relevant. The decisions are close/tough decisions that you have conscious pros and cons for. The kinds of decisions in the quantum cognition research were decisions that are uncertain like what to have for dinner, who to vote for, etc

 

[DBT]

That's not right. Unconscious information processing, inputs, propagation, memory integration, etc, achieves readiness potential and is then made available to conscious activity in the form of information feed into the 'stream' of consciousness, altering consciousness as information becomes available.

What I put is for the kinds of decisions that I am talking about, not the easily made decisions.

It doesn't matter what type of decisions, hard, easy or in between, it still remains that it is the information state of the system in the moment of selection that determines the decision that is made....a moment later is a different state, the arrow of time/change.

Hhhhh, your argument here is why I gave the clock analogy. The cog in the clock (QM mechanism) does not give the time (does not make the decision). For the last time, I am not saying that the Posner molecules make the decision; it's them and more that make the decision. So the decision still could have been different.

No, it couldn't have been different. The conditions that produce a decision are unique to that moment in time,

It can only be the selection of option A over option B in that instant in time, if A was in fact selected.

Nor can you go back in time in order to add or alter the information conditions (including possible quantum interference) that produced that decision.

Sorry, but your proposition doesn't work.

 

[ryan]

What I put is for the kinds of decisions that I am talking about, not the easily made decisions.

It doesn't matter what type of decisions, hard, easy or in between, it still remains that it is the information state of the system in the moment of selection that determines the decision that is made....a moment later is a different state, the arrow of time/change.

I am only talking about the kinds of decisions that were in the QC research. I don't know if QC applies to other kinds of decisions.

Hhhhh, your argument here is why I gave the clock analogy. The cog in the clock (QM mechanism) does not give the time (does not make the decision). For the last time, I am not saying that the Posner molecules make the decision; it's them and more that make the decision. So the decision still could have been different.

No, it couldn't have been different. The conditions that produce a decision are unique to that moment in time,

It can only be the selection of option A over option B in that instant in time, if A was in fact selected.

Nor can you go back in time in order to add or alter the information conditions (including possible quantum interference) that produced that decision.

Sorry, but your proposition doesn't work.

I just explained to Juma in the post right above your post why this isn't an issue. And it doesn't matter if it is possible to go back I time or not; it only matters what could have happened scientifically speaking. As far as we know scientifically, something else was allowed to happen. QM allowed other possible outcomes.

 

[ryan]

No, it couldn't have been different. The conditions that produce a decision are unique to that moment in time,

It can only be the selection of option A over option B in that instant in time, if A was in fact selected.

Just to comment on this, the research suggests that the consciousness is contemplating each decision simultaneously in a superposition. Possible mechanisms responsible for providing a working definition are explained in Fisher's paper.

 

[DBT]

No, it couldn't have been different. The conditions that produce a decision are unique to that moment in time,

It can only be the selection of option A over option B in that instant in time, if A was in fact selected.

Just to comment on this, the research suggests that the consciousness is contemplating each decision simultaneously in a superposition. Possible mechanisms responsible for providing a working definition are explained in Fisher's paper.

Consciousness has no independence. You still are still misconstruing superposition, the mechanisms of decision making and the research.

 

[ryan]

Just to comment on this, the research suggests that the consciousness is contemplating each decision simultaneously in a superposition. Possible mechanisms responsible for providing a working definition are explained in Fisher's paper.

Consciousness has no independence.

Clearly it might. Between Posner molecules and microtubules, there is a possibility for independence. This is such early days for quantum cognitive research that I think it would be presumptuous to assume the extent of quantum functions.

You still are still misconstruing superposition, the mechanisms of decision making and the research.

Nope, not that I can tell. I read both research papers about 5 times each now, and it all leaves "could have chosen differently" on the table.

 

[Malintent]

it doesn't matter if it is possible to go back I time or not; it only matters what could have happened scientifically speaking. As far as we know scientifically, something else was allowed to happen. QM allowed other possible outcomes.

I reject your assertion that any other decision was possible. You have no basis for the assertion. The only basis would be actually traveling backwards through time and observing different outcomes, given identical circumstances. I assert that given identical variables, one would observe identical outcomes. The basis of that assertion is the success of the scientific method, which itself is based on this notion (confirmation via repeatable experimentation).

This thesis is the basis for my rejection of the notion of "free will". "Free will" is like "random". It is only the imagination of the existence of possibilities due to our limited view of all relevant variables.

 

[ryan]

it doesn't matter if it is possible to go back I time or not; it only matters what could have happened scientifically speaking. As far as we know scientifically, something else was allowed to happen. QM allowed other possible outcomes.

I reject your assertion that any other decision was possible. You have no basis for the assertion. The only basis would be actually traveling backwards through time and observing different outcomes, given identical circumstances. I assert that given identical variables, one would observe identical outcomes. The basis of that assertion is the success of the scientific method, which itself is based on this notion (confirmation via repeatable experimentation).

This thesis is the basis for my rejection of the notion of "free will". "Free will" is like "random". It is only the imagination of the existence of possibilities due to our limited view of all relevant variables.

You are assuming there are other variables in QM. So far there is no evidence for other variables.

 

[Playball40]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

1) How could you possibly know that the choices you never took were ever available to you? I think it's more helpful to think of our brains having competing urges. One will release more dopamin or serotonin than the other's. So that will be selected. But you will perceive it as you choosing, weighing pros and cons... perhaps using your rational faculties.

2) If the choice is between happiness or pain, is that really a choice at all? To anybody who has experimented with drugs or even suffered a mental health issue that requires medication, they know that choice is an illusion. We will systematically behave differently on or off the drug. Is that really freedom?

I just realized that I've sidled into a free will debate and that wasn't my intention. I can't think of any more boring subject.

This is way too simplistic. Dopamine and Serotonin are not the only players.