Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

I know. I was referring to Fisher's working definition of QC, which is what Wang's research is about.

No, it's not. Fisher is referring to quantum cognition in the sense that cognition involves actual quantum effects; Wang et al is simply using the mathematics of quantum probability to model higher-level processes.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC. That's why I sent the e-mail, but no response yet.

 

[bigfield]

No, it's not. Fisher is referring to quantum cognition in the sense that cognition involves actual quantum effects; Wang et al is simply using the mathematics of quantum probability to model higher-level processes.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC. That's why I sent the e-mail, but no response yet.

You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

 

[Juma]

Jezzuzz. Did you send this??? Why on earth would expect a meankngful response?

You have actually formulateda question that soesnt ask anything and will let you interpret the answer in any way you want... but that is what you want, isnt it?

The question between me and bigfield is whether or not the superposition of the conscious decision-making process is due to the quantum mechanisms that he discusses in the paper. The question is what I wanted it to be.

Which is exactly what i wrote in my post. Did you even read it?

What do you mean you wrote exactly this? Clearly what I wrote and what you wrote are different.

No. My point was that the badly written question was what you wanted it to be: a badly written question that wouldnt clear up anything.

 

[ryan]

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC. That's why I sent the e-mail, but no response yet.

You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Matthew just sent me a reply! I asked him if it is okay to share his response, and he was fine with it. His answer is in response to this,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?" .

His response:

"Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins."

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

 

[DBT]

I have. It's where he says that it is a "working definition of 'quantum cognition'". Anyways, I sent him an e-mail in hopes of ending this. I told bigfield what I sent.

''Quantum cognition' does not mean that it is quantum states that make decisions, or that decisions are in quantum superposition like a photon/wave fired through a double slit....it just means that quantum effects at synaptic junctions play a part in connectivity. It is still neurons as information processors and their connections with other neuron and structures that sort information, seek patterns and select options on the basis of information, and not that decisions exist in quantum superposition and somehow one happens to be realised.

 

[bigfield]

You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Matthew just sent me a reply! I asked him if it is okay to share his response, and he was fine with it. His answer is in response to this,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?" .

His response:

"Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins."

My point remains: You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

I have no intention of wasting Fisher's time in order to settle a disagreement on a web forum. However you can forward the full message to bigfield@sharklasers.com for my information, as I'd like to see the full conversation.

 

[DBT]

You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Matthew just sent me a reply! I asked him if it is okay to share his response, and he was fine with it. His answer is in response to this,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?" .

His response:

"Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins."

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

Nope; Decoherance timescales are too short.

Abstract
Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales (∼10−13–10−20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (∼10−3–10−1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

 

[Juma]

You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Matthew just sent me a reply! I asked him if it is okay to share his response, and he was fine with it. His answer is in response to this,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?" .

His response:

"Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins."

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

And as I predicted the answer doesnt say anything at all about wether he believs decisions are QM superpositions or not.

 

[ryan]

I have. It's where he says that it is a "working definition of 'quantum cognition'". Anyways, I sent him an e-mail in hopes of ending this. I told bigfield what I sent.

''Quantum cognition' does not mean that it is quantum states that make decisions, or that decisions are in quantum superposition like a photon/wave fired through a double slit....it just means that quantum effects at synaptic junctions play a part in connectivity. It is still neurons as information processors and their connections with other neuron and structures that sort information, seek patterns and select options on the basis of information, and not that decisions exist in quantum superposition and somehow one happens to be realised.

I am absolutely done with this DBT, and so should you.

And that abstract you posted below was done in 1999.

It's over DBT; it's over.

 

[DBT]

''Quantum cognition' does not mean that it is quantum states that make decisions, or that decisions are in quantum superposition like a photon/wave fired through a double slit....it just means that quantum effects at synaptic junctions play a part in connectivity. It is still neurons as information processors and their connections with other neuron and structures that sort information, seek patterns and select options on the basis of information, and not that decisions exist in quantum superposition and somehow one happens to be realised.

I am absolutely done with this DBT, and so should you.

And that abstract you posted below was done in 1999.

It's over DBT; it's over.

Time doesn't change the problem of decoherance timescales. It is still the same problem now as it was then (2000).

Nor is it the only problem.

The nature of information, memory function integration, inputs from the external world effecting changes in the system, chemical and structural effects upon the system, etc, etc.

 

[ryan]

Matthew just sent me a reply! I asked him if it is okay to share his response, and he was fine with it. His answer is in response to this,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?" .

His response:

"Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins."

My point remains: You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Read the first half of my question. It clearly refers to the quantum probability of the decision-making process. He knew what I was getting at because it is obvious.

Why is everyone having such a hard time accepting this? What happening here?!

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

I have no intention of wasting Fisher's time in order to settle a disagreement on a web forum. However you can forward the full message to bigfield@sharklasers.com for my information, as I'd like to see the full conversation.

Probably just paranoia, but I am not really comfortable with giving my information online. So many nasty people on here that were nice when I first met them. One guy actually threatened to kill me. Don't take it personal; I am just playing the odds.

Anyways, here's the full text,

Dear Matthew Fisher:

My name is *******, and I have come across your paper "Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain". This is not my area of study, but I am extremely interested in what this could mean.

Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?

Anything you can explain regarding this question would be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

********

His reply,

Hi ******,

Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins.

Best,

Matthew

But why don't you just ask him what you want in your own words. Explain to him what our conversation is about and elaborate if you want. What's the big deal? He is probably so interested in his research that he is willing to reply to me when he certainly didn't have to.

 

[bigfield]

My point remains: You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Read the first half of my question. It clearly refers to the quantum probability of the decision-making process. He knew what I was getting at because it is obvious.

I read your question; you don't need to tell me to read it.

Your question to Fisher contains a grammatical error that makes it ambiguous. The form "Since X, Y" is synonymous with "X because Y"

This:

Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?​

...can also be written as this:

Might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics, because plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process?​

...which is a non-sequitur. I reject your assertion that Fisher knew what you were 'getting at, because it is obvious' on the basis that the question, taken in it's entirety, doesn't make sense.

To remove any ambiguity in his response, Fisher stipulates his meaning of quantum cognition, which is a distinctly different concept than that used by Wang et al.

Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins.​

I suspect he responded only to the part of your question that made sense, which is:

...might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?​

To which the answer is obviously 'yes', but it doesn't explain whether Fisher means quantum cognition in the same sense that Wang et al means it, and it doesn't say that Fisher's article relates to the model used by Wang et al.

My point remains that you are engaging in false equivocation. In addition to that, you are attempting to defend that false equivocation by engaging in an ambiguity fallacy by pretending that a statement's meaning is clear when it demonstrably is not.

 

[Juma]

My point remains: You are engaging in false equivocation. The concept of 'quantum cognition' that Fisher refers to is not the same as the concept of "quantum cognition" that Wang et al refers to.

Read the first half of my question. It clearly refers to the quantum probability of the decision-making process. He knew what I was getting at because it is obvious.

Why is everyone having such a hard time accepting this? What happening here?!

Just incase you don't believe me, I used the e-mail address that his university puts out for anyone to see. And I know you may want to confirm with him, which would link back to me and my university e-mail address, which would probably get me into a lot of trouble.

I have no intention of wasting Fisher's time in order to settle a disagreement on a web forum. However you can forward the full message to bigfield@sharklasers.com for my information, as I'd like to see the full conversation.

Probably just paranoia, but I am not really comfortable with giving my information online. So many nasty people on here that were nice when I first met them. One guy actually threatened to kill me. Don't take it personal; I am just playing the odds.

Anyways, here's the full text,

Dear Matthew Fisher:

My name is *******, and I have come across your paper "Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain". This is not my area of study, but I am extremely interested in what this could mean.

Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?

Anything you can explain regarding this question would be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

********

His reply,

Hi ******,

Yes, that is indeed the case. When I say quantum cognition I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part)
a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins.

Best,

Matthew

But why don't you just ask him what you want in your own words. Explain to him what our conversation is about and elaborate if you want. What's the big deal? He is probably so interested in his research that he is willing to reply to me when he certainly didn't have to.

Ryan. Why dont you try to properly state your hypotesis about "high level decisions as QM superpositions and how this enables free will" and post this to the poor guy and see what his respons is?

 

[bigfield]

Wang et al states that:

...quantum cognition research...differs from the approaches which treat (parts of) the brain literally as material quantum systems or a quantum computer. In contrast, our approach applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science. In fact, to convey the idea that researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics, various modifiers have been proposed to describe the approach, such as cognitive models based on quantum structure, quantum-like models, and generalized quantum models.
​

Yet despite this, Ryan still makes the false equivocation that the authors expressly caution against.

Why is everyone having such a hard time accepting this? What happening here?!

Perhaps you should direct your complaint to Wang, Busemeyer, Atmanspacher and Pothos.

 

[Juma]

Wang et al states that:

...quantum cognition research...differs from the approaches which treat (parts of) the brain literally as material quantum systems or a quantum computer. In contrast, our approach applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science. In fact, to convey the idea that researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics, various modifiers have been proposed to describe the approach, such as cognitive models based on quantum structure, quantum-like models, and generalized quantum models.
​

Yet despite this, Ryan still makes the false equivocation that the authors expressly caution against.

Why is everyone having such a hard time accepting this? What happening here?!

Perhaps you should direct your complaint to Wang, Busemeyer, Atmanspacher and Pothos.

Game, set and match. (But no suprise...)

 

[DBT]

It was game, set and march quite a while ago. But ryan does have strong legs, which makes him a nimble dancer.

 

[ryan]

Wang et al states that:

...quantum cognition research...differs from the approaches which treat (parts of) the brain literally as material quantum systems or a quantum computer. In contrast, our approach applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science. In fact, to convey the idea that researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics, various modifiers have been proposed to describe the approach, such as cognitive models based on quantum structure, quantum-like models, and generalized quantum models.
​

Yet despite this, Ryan still makes the false equivocation that the authors expressly caution against.

You keep saying this over and over and I keep telling you that I know. I have always known that she is not advocating for the brain to be a quantum computer. She doesn't claim or deny quantum computation done by the brain in her research papers.

 

[bigfield]

Wang et al states that:

...quantum cognition research...differs from the approaches which treat (parts of) the brain literally as material quantum systems or a quantum computer. In contrast, our approach applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science. In fact, to convey the idea that researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics, various modifiers have been proposed to describe the approach, such as cognitive models based on quantum structure, quantum-like models, and generalized quantum models.
​

Yet despite this, Ryan still makes the false equivocation that the authors expressly caution against.

You keep saying this over and over and I keep telling you that I know. I have always known that she is not advocating for the brain to be a quantum computer. She doesn't claim or deny quantum computation done by the brain in her research papers.

You constantly refer to "QC" in your posts, which I take to mean "quantum cognition", not "quantum computation".

When Fisher refers to quantum cognition, he is referring to what Wang et al describes as "material quantum systems"; Wang et al explicitly states that their "quantum cognition" research is distinct from "material quantum systems", because they have repurposed quantum probability theory to describe systems that are unrelated to quantum mechanics.

Fisher even states plainly that his definition of "quantum cognition" does involve material quantum systems and does involves quantum mechanics.

Therefore, Fisher's research is unrelated to Wang et al.


You clearly equivocate the two different meaning of "quantum cognition" when you make statements such as the following:

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC.

The "quantum-like" behavior in Wang et al's quantum cognition model is not explained by Fisher's research, because they are unrelated.

 

[ryan]

You keep saying this over and over and I keep telling you that I know. I have always known that she is not advocating for the brain to be a quantum computer. She doesn't claim or deny quantum computation done by the brain in her research papers.

You constantly refer to "QC" in your posts, which I take to mean "quantum cognition", not "quantum computation".

When Fisher refers to quantum cognition, he is referring to what Wang et al describes as "material quantum systems"; Wang et al explicitly states that their "quantum cognition" research is distinct from "material quantum systems", because they have repurposed quantum probability theory to describe systems that are unrelated to quantum mechanics.

Fisher even states plainly that his definition of "quantum cognition" does involve material quantum systems and does involves quantum mechanics.

Therefore, Fisher's research is unrelated to Wang et al.


You clearly equivocate the two different meaning of "quantum cognition" when you make statements such as the following:

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC.

The "quantum-like" behavior in Wang et al's quantum cognition model is not explained by Fisher's research, because they are unrelated.

There's QC (quantum cognition) which is a mathematical model of cognitive processes such as the decision-making process. Then there is what Fisher calls a "working definition" of QC. That's just a possible explanation that fits the mathematical model.

 

[bigfield]

You constantly refer to "QC" in your posts, which I take to mean "quantum cognition", not "quantum computation".

When Fisher refers to quantum cognition, he is referring to what Wang et al describes as "material quantum systems"; Wang et al explicitly states that their "quantum cognition" research is distinct from "material quantum systems", because they have repurposed quantum probability theory to describe systems that are unrelated to quantum mechanics.

Fisher even states plainly that his definition of "quantum cognition" does involve material quantum systems and does involves quantum mechanics.

Therefore, Fisher's research is unrelated to Wang et al.


You clearly equivocate the two different meaning of "quantum cognition" when you make statements such as the following:

It seems glaringly obvious to me that Fisher is using actual QM to explain the "quantum-like" behavior in QC.

The "quantum-like" behavior in Wang et al's quantum cognition model is not explained by Fisher's research, because they are unrelated.

There's QC (quantum cognition) which is a mathematical model of cognitive processes such as the decision-making process. Then there is what Fisher calls a "working definition" of QC. That's just a possible explanation that fits the mathematical model.

There you go again.

Fisher's definition of "quantum cognition" is unrelated to the model in Wang et al.