Human Instinct and Free Will

[bigfield]

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.

Wang et al does not refer to actual quantum effects, and Fisher does not provide any such mechanism.

 

[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.

Wang et al does not refer to actual quantum effects, and Fisher does not provide any such mechanism.

I never said she did. And Fisher describes in his paper as a "working definition of quantum cognition". As for the mechanism, he has,

"Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing."

 

[bigfield]

Wang et al does not refer to actual quantum effects, and Fisher does not provide any such mechanism.

I never said she did. And Fisher describes in his paper as a "working definition of quantum cognition". As for the mechanism, he has,

"Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing."

Since I've already addressed your quote-mining fallacies with respect to Fisher, allow me to quote some of my previous responses:

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.

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:

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

Here you are repeating a mistake you've made previously, so allow me to refer to my previous response:

Also read,

"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 the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

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

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

Please stop conflating Wang et al's use of superposition with the quantum effect.

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]

Since I've already addressed your quote-mining fallacies with respect to Fisher, allow me to quote some of my previous responses:

"Quote-mining"? Do you know how science papers work?

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

 

[bigfield]

Since I've already addressed your quote-mining fallacies with respect to Fisher, allow me to quote some of my previous responses:

"Quote-mining"? Do you know how science papers work?

You have repeatedly taken snippets of text from Fisher and claimed that they mean something that is obviously not the case when those snippets are read in the context of the full article. That is quote-mining.

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

I answered your questions: You were correct that I "really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement", and that is also the answer to your first question.

 

[ryan]

"Quote-mining"? Do you know how science papers work?

You have repeatedly taken snippets of text from Fisher and claimed that they mean something that is obviously not the case when those snippets are read in the context of the full article. That is quote-mining.

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

I answered your questions: You were correct that I "really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement", and that is also the answer to your first question.

That was an answer for one of the questions. What about the other question I asked?

 

[bigfield]

You have repeatedly taken snippets of text from Fisher and claimed that they mean something that is obviously not the case when those snippets are read in the context of the full article. That is quote-mining.

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

I answered your questions: You were correct that I "really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement", and that is also the answer to your first question.

That was an answer for one of the questions. What about the other question I asked?

Q: "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.'"?

A: Fisher is referring to a system where multiple neurons are connected using the mechanism he proposes; it is 'complex' because multiple neurons are connected. Or to put it another way, "this means more of the same pairs of entanglement".

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

A: That's correct.

 

[ryan]

You have repeatedly taken snippets of text from Fisher and claimed that they mean something that is obviously not the case when those snippets are read in the context of the full article. That is quote-mining.

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

I answered your questions: You were correct that I "really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement", and that is also the answer to your first question.

That was an answer for one of the questions. What about the other question I asked?

Q: "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.'"?

A: Fisher is referring to a system where multiple neurons are connected using the mechanism he proposes; it is 'complex' because multiple neurons are connected. Or to put it another way, "this means more of the same pairs of entanglement".

From https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ,on page 597, he says, "Generally, one can envisage complex clusters of highly entangled
Posner molecules (see Fig. 3b) providing an ideal setting for quantum processing, as we next discuss.".

Then on page 598 (b) there is what is called below diagram (b), "a complex of highly entangled Posner molecules".

Finally, on page 600 he has

"A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. 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.".

 

[bigfield]

You have repeatedly taken snippets of text from Fisher and claimed that they mean something that is obviously not the case when those snippets are read in the context of the full article. That is quote-mining.

Anyways, we left off with me saying,

"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?"'

and you responding with,

"That's correct.".

Answer my questions and explain why if you want to keep the discussion going. It does not seem like he was referring to only pairs.

I answered your questions: You were correct that I "really think this means more of the same pairs of entanglement", and that is also the answer to your first question.

That was an answer for one of the questions. What about the other question I asked?

Q: "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.'"?

A: Fisher is referring to a system where multiple neurons are connected using the mechanism he proposes; it is 'complex' because multiple neurons are connected. Or to put it another way, "this means more of the same pairs of entanglement".

From https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ,on page 597, he says, "Generally, one can envisage complex clusters of highly entangled
Posner molecules (see Fig. 3b) providing an ideal setting for quantum processing, as we next discuss.".

Then on page 598 (b) there is what is called below diagram (b), "a complex of highly entangled Posner molecules".

Finally, on page 600 he has

"A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. 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.".

I'm aware of what Fisher wrote; I've read the article.

 

[ryan]

I'm aware of what Fisher wrote; I've read the article.

Then I expect you to know that "complex" means more than just 2 entangled Posner molecules.

 

[bigfield]

I'm aware of what Fisher wrote; I've read the article.

Then I expect you to know that "complex" means more than just 2 entangled Posner molecules.

I'm aware of that. It remains that Fisher does not provide a mechanism responsible for superposed decisions.

 

[ryan]

Then I expect you to know that "complex" means more than just 2 entangled Posner molecules.

I'm aware of that. It remains that Fisher does not provide a mechanism responsible for superposed decisions.

He calls it a "working definition of quantum cognition". I trust that he means what he says.

 

[bigfield]

I'm aware of that. It remains that Fisher does not provide a mechanism responsible for superposed decisions.

He calls it a "working definition of quantum cognition". I trust that he means what he says.

Whether Fisher means what he says or not is irrelevant; it is still up to you to comprehend his meaning. The article does not support your interpretation that Fisher is referring to superposed decisions.

 

[DBT]

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.

No, no and no for the reasons clearly outlined by several posters, Bigfield, Bilby, Juma, etc, including me.

At this point all I have to say, ryan, is; you have the legs of a dancer, twisting, turning, pirouetting with such skill that you could be dancing with the stars....

 

[Juma]

The article does not support your interpretation that Fisher is referring to superposed decisions.

Yes, there is a very clear distinction.

(It really very strange to observe these, seemingly totally obvious points, swishing high over ryans head.)

 

[ryan]

He calls it a "working definition of quantum cognition". I trust that he means what he says.

Whether Fisher means what he says or not is irrelevant; it is still up to you to comprehend his meaning. The article does not support your interpretation that Fisher is referring to superposed decisions.

I gave my reason, the quote, but you just say I am wrong. You don't expect me to just trust you, do you?

 

[ryan]

The article does not support your interpretation that Fisher is referring to superposed decisions.

Yes, there is a very clear distinction.

(It really very strange to observe these, seemingly totally obvious points, swishing high over ryans head.)

:laughing-smiley-014 You weren't even bringing these "obvious points" up, but would you just enlighten me anyways since nobody else has?
:laughing-smiley-014

 

[DBT]

Well, why not provide quotes that you believe support your contention that it is in fact decisions that are in superposition?

 

[bigfield]

Whether Fisher means what he says or not is irrelevant; it is still up to you to comprehend his meaning. The article does not support your interpretation that Fisher is referring to superposed decisions.

I gave my reason, the quote, but you just say I am wrong. You don't expect me to just trust you, do you?

I don't expect you to trust me and don't 'just' say you are wrong; my position is supported by the argument I've presented in this thread. Did you understand my argument?

 

[ryan]

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.

No, no and no for the reasons clearly outlined by several posters, Bigfield, Bilby, Juma

Oh DBT, oh no, you aren't really pulling this card are you? Science isn't subject to popular vote - thank god!