Human Instinct and Free Will

[bigfield]

That's not what Wang et al are interested in; that's not what their kind of research specializes in (see https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ). Wang/Busemeyer are studying the behavior of people by observation and trying to find a mathematical model that explains how the brain processes inputs. They are not concerned with how the internal processes that perform QC, "This research is not concerned with whether the brain is a quantum computer."

That's correct.

QC was a well established term by the time Fisher put out his paper "Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain" in 2015. And I take "working definition of QC" to mean possible definition of QC.

Then you are simply mistaken, for the reason already given:

You are imputing the words "working definition" with some kind of meaning that isn't there. "Working definition" just means that it is a stipulative definition; stipulative definitions are used when readers might accidentally confuse the meaning of an ambiguous term.

Fisher stipulates that "quantum cognition" refers--in the context of his article alone--to neural activity that employs quantum entangled pairs or molecules and the ability to store "qubits". The very fact that he states that it is a working definition should tell you that it doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as "quantum cognition" does in other articles.

I would have pointed this out earlier had I realised that you didn't understand something as elementary as a stipulative definition.

Wang et al could also be said to be using a "working definition"--albeit a much different one than Fisher--as they specify that their "quantum cognition research...applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science...researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics".

Secondly, Fisher does not provide a mechanism that allows the brain to function as a quantum computer; he only provides a mechanism by which the brain might be able to function partly as a quantum computer. On the slim chance that Fisher's mechanism actually exists in the brain, this would not mean that the brain, or even small parts of it, would function like a quantum computer.

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

I worded it poorly, so I'll clarify: By partly, I mean that Fisher's mechanism, if it actually exists at all, would provide the brain with a part of the functionality that exists in quantum computers. However, no piece or region of the brain can actually function like a quantum computer using this mechanism, as Fisher's mechanism doesn't even come close to providing the functionality necessary.

 

[ryan]

How are you conscious of one particle? Or even conscious of what the quantum states at synaptic clefts happen to be at any given moment in time?

Entanglement would give us a more complex consciousness because we would be more than one particle.

We are more than one particle. We are a part of a whole brain with its trillions of neurons working to produce our experience of the world and self. But we as conscious entities are only aware of the latter.

We have no awareness of the former.

That is where your proposition fails.

You shift from a reductionist point of view to a holistic point of view. It's like saying that the square root of 9 is only 3 when it really could be + or -3.

 

[fromderinside]

You shift from a reductionist point of view to a holistic point of view. It's like saying that the square root of 9 is only 3 when it really could be + or -3.

Why not? Even if it is true that one QM piece of probability produces choice in one event it's one of several thousand that instant in that human, the rest of which are just this then that. Holistic, reductionist, who cares when cause and effect are uncertain or dependent on viewpoint.

 

[ryan]

That's correct.

QC was a well established term by the time Fisher put out his paper "Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain" in 2015. And I take "working definition of QC" to mean possible definition of QC.

Then you are simply mistaken, for the reason already given:

You are imputing the words "working definition" with some kind of meaning that isn't there. "Working definition" just means that it is a stipulative definition; stipulative definitions are used when readers might accidentally confuse the meaning of an ambiguous term.

Fisher stipulates that "quantum cognition" refers--in the context of his article alone--to neural activity that employs quantum entangled pairs or molecules and the ability to store "qubits". The very fact that he states that it is a working definition should tell you that it doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as "quantum cognition" does in other articles.

I would have pointed this out earlier had I realised that you didn't understand something as elementary as a stipulative definition.

Wang et al could also be said to be using a "working definition"--albeit a much different one than Fisher--as they specify that their "quantum cognition research...applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science...researchers in this area are not doing quantum mechanics".

My argument is about the scientific possibility versus being scientifically ruled out.

Look at the big picture here. We have a relatively new and better model of some areas of some of the cognitive sciences. The math is the same math used with QM. Naturally that is going to make people wonder if the brain is the classical information processor it was always thought to be or if it actually is a quantum processor. So searching for quantum mechanical explanations for the quantum theoretical math observed would naturally be area of interest.

Secondly, Fisher does not provide a mechanism that allows the brain to function as a quantum computer; he only provides a mechanism by which the brain might be able to function partly as a quantum computer. On the slim chance that Fisher's mechanism actually exists in the brain, this would not mean that the brain, or even small parts of it, would function like a quantum computer.

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

I worded it poorly, so I'll clarify: By partly, I mean that Fisher's mechanism, if it actually exists at all, would provide the brain with a part of the functionality that exists in quantum computers. However, no piece or region of the brain can actually function like a quantum computer using this mechanism, as Fisher's mechanism doesn't even come close to providing the functionality necessary.

So when he puts "I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer", are you taking this to mean it is partly a quantum computer? If you are, then when I find similar sentence structures on the Oxford dictionary that have "in part", I am confident that the "in part" refers to the brain and not a quantum computer.

 

[bigfield]

My argument is about the scientific possibility versus being scientifically ruled out.

Look at the big picture here. We have a relatively new and better model of some areas of some of the cognitive sciences. The math is the same math used with QM. Naturally that is going to make people wonder if the brain is the classical information processor it was always thought to be or if it actually is a quantum processor. So searching for quantum mechanical explanations for the quantum theoretical math observed would naturally be area of interest.

It can already be ruled out that the brain is a quantum computer, as it is impossible for a quantum computer to exist in the conditions found in the human brain.

Secondly, Fisher does not provide a mechanism that allows the brain to function as a quantum computer; he only provides a mechanism by which the brain might be able to function partly as a quantum computer. On the slim chance that Fisher's mechanism actually exists in the brain, this would not mean that the brain, or even small parts of it, would function like a quantum computer.

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

I worded it poorly, so I'll clarify: By partly, I mean that Fisher's mechanism, if it actually exists at all, would provide the brain with a part of the functionality that exists in quantum computers. However, no piece or region of the brain can actually function like a quantum computer using this mechanism, as Fisher's mechanism doesn't even come close to providing the functionality necessary.

So when he puts "I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer", are you taking this to mean it is partly a quantum computer? If you are, then when I find similar sentence structures on the Oxford dictionary that have "in part", I am confident that the "in part" refers to the brain and not a quantum computer.

Your confidence is borne of confirmation bias.

As Fisher points out in his article quantum entanglements cannot last long in the human brain. (DBT has provided further detail for you on that.) Fisher identifies a possible solitary exception to that rule: entangled phosphate ions produced by pyrophosphatase and protected within Posner clusters. This mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer; it can only produce a tiny fraction of what is needed to make a quantum computer.

 

[ryan]

It can already be ruled out that the brain is a quantum computer, as it is impossible for a quantum computer to exist in the conditions found in the human brain.

Secondly, Fisher does not provide a mechanism that allows the brain to function as a quantum computer; he only provides a mechanism by which the brain might be able to function partly as a quantum computer. On the slim chance that Fisher's mechanism actually exists in the brain, this would not mean that the brain, or even small parts of it, would function like a quantum computer.

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

I worded it poorly, so I'll clarify: By partly, I mean that Fisher's mechanism, if it actually exists at all, would provide the brain with a part of the functionality that exists in quantum computers. However, no piece or region of the brain can actually function like a quantum computer using this mechanism, as Fisher's mechanism doesn't even come close to providing the functionality necessary.

So when he puts "I am contemplating the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer", are you taking this to mean it is partly a quantum computer? If you are, then when I find similar sentence structures on the Oxford dictionary that have "in part", I am confident that the "in part" refers to the brain and not a quantum computer.

Your confidence is borne of confirmation bias.

As Fisher points out in his article quantum entanglements cannot last long in the human brain. (DBT has provided further detail for you on that.) Fisher identifies a possible solitary exception to that rule: entangled phosphate ions produced by pyrophosphatase and protected within Posner clusters. This mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer; it can only produce a tiny fraction of what is needed to make a quantum computer.

He is very close to this topic and has the science leading up until last year to back him; I trust that he knows what he's talking about.

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

 

[bigfield]

He is very close to this topic and has the science leading up until last year to back him; I trust that he knows what he's talking about.

You used this line of argument before, and it is still invalid. Your opinion of Fisher's trustworthiness is irrelevant; the onus is on your to demonstrate that your interpretation of his article, and his email, are correct. So far you have resoundingly failed to support your position.

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

You presented Wang et al and Fisher as evidence in support of your position on free will. Those articles do not support your position.

 

[DBT]

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

Science does not support quantum consciousness for the reasons already explained: the brain is too hot and wet to allow superposition at any scale except perhaps at synaptic junctions and microtubules, but this is not enough to call the brain a quantum processor or define consciousness as quantum consciousness.

Nor is the possibility to have done otherwise a foundation for 'free will' because whatever happens is neither an act of will or a conscious choice.

Nor is it possible for a decision, once made by the brain's information state in any moment in time (a brain in not quantum superposition), to have done otherwise. There is no instantaneous veto controlled by will, the system is subject to time and change and causality, which includes glitches in the workings of the system...which may indeed produce an unwanted, non willed, result.

 

[DBT]

You shift from a reductionist point of view to a holistic point of view. It's like saying that the square root of 9 is only 3 when it really could be + or -3.

Reductionist? I was responding to you and your remark - ''Particle for particle, nothing but the knowledge of a particle would exist. We would be conscious one particle at a time and would never know other particles exist. Entanglement would give us a more complex consciousness because we would be more than one particle. Entanglement allows us to acknowledge whole groups of particles by being them'' - which is not only reductionism to the point of particle awareness, but not supported by research or evidence.

 

[ryan]

You used this line of argument before, and it is still invalid. Your opinion of Fisher's trustworthiness is irrelevant; the onus is on your to demonstrate that your interpretation of his article, and his email, are correct. So far you have resoundingly failed to support your position.

I am talking about the e-mail. I mentioned that his e-mail is about part of the brain being a quantum computer and that he didn't mean that the brain had parts of a quantum computer.

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

You presented Wang et al and Fisher as evidence in support of your position on free will. Those articles do not support your position.

I have yet to read anything that makes me believe otherwise, especially since there seems to be mechanisms that may allow me to have done otherwise. My only argument is not that there is free will, but free will is still possible.

 

[fromderinside]

My only argument is not that there is free will, but free will is still possible.

What is it about no evidence macro behavior exhibits anything but deterministic behavior that confuses you?

Its a moot point that deterministic possibilities may exist in the Quantum world since there is no evidence they impact what is happening in the macro world. My view is improbable QM events at any time impinging on macro behavior are not enough, by several orders of magnitude, to influence macro behavior.

Think of it this way. In the same way that macro measurement of Quantum states requires a probalistic math to make sense of the Quantum world quantum events cannot be seen in macro events except as an impossible to realize statistical probability.

 

[ryan]

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

Science does not support quantum consciousness for the reasons already explained: the brain is too hot and wet to allow superposition at any scale except perhaps at synaptic junctions and microtubules, but this is not enough to call the brain a quantum processor or define consciousness as quantum consciousness.

This last part is not backed up by anything. You just saying this, which opposes recent science articles.

Nor is the possibility to have done otherwise a foundation for 'free will' because whatever happens is neither an act of will or a conscious choice.

Nor is it possible for a decision, once made by the brain's information state in any moment in time (a brain in not quantum superposition), to have done otherwise. There is no instantaneous veto controlled by will, the system is subject to time and change and causality, which includes glitches in the workings of the system...which may indeed produce an unwanted, non willed, result.

Reductionist? I was responding to you and your remark - ''Particle for particle, nothing but the knowledge of a particle would exist. We would be conscious one particle at a time and would never know other particles exist. Entanglement would give us a more complex consciousness because we would be more than one particle. Entanglement allows us to acknowledge whole groups of particles by being them'' - which is not only reductionism to the point of particle awareness, but not supported by research or evidence.

You are missing the point. The reason why you can jump from holism to reductionism and back to holism is because science has not yet been able to explain holistic phenomena. But we absolutely need to explain it in order for any meaning of anything to exist. Entanglement can do this.

Think about it; how is it that we can "know" about multiple particles (strings or whatever the basic elements of the universe are)? In other words, why do groups of particles that make up a mental thought have this holistic, discontinuous and metaphysical mental connection with phenomena outside itself. There should just be particle, then particle, then particle, then particle, etc. or x particles. There shouldn't be a bunch of particles making up a discontinuous mental representation of, say, the observation of a tree. The aboutness and representation of other things is well beyond the total parts of particles.

Entanglement is such a perfect and natural/physical way of explaining this metaphysical phenomena. Entire observations that are actually entangled particles that are also entangled with the photons that carry the information that are also entangled with the actual outside object; it all fits so nicely.

The point of all of this is that we need quantum processing for this to be true. Yes there is going to be randomness in some of the more intricate processes, but so what. It's better than being a ghost in a machine that can only observe without any say in what happens or what it does.

 

[fromderinside]

It's better than being a ghost in a machine that can only observe without any say in what happens or what it does.

Except to be a ghost in reality it must be realizable. There is no evidence such ghosts are realizable in the macro world. Possibilities that there may be mechanisms in the Quantum world are meaningless unless they are realizable in the macro world. Yes, we imagine ghosts, but no ghosts are ever found.


We are machines and there is no evidence to the contrary.

You always miss the determining point. No quantum bahavior in macro world. To do so would require the removal of time.

 

[ryan]

My only argument is not that there is free will, but free will is still possible.

What is it about no evidence macro behavior exhibits anything but deterministic behavior that confuses you?

Its a moot point that deterministic possibilities may exist in the Quantum world since there is no evidence they impact what is happening in the macro world. My view is improbable QM events at any time impinging on macro behavior are not enough, by several orders of magnitude, to influence macro behavior.

Think of it this way. In the same way that macro measurement of Quantum states requires a probalistic math to make sense of the Quantum world quantum events cannot be seen in macro events except as an impossible to realize statistical probability.

If you have enough particles entangled together, you can have a macro scale object having significant probabilities in being in different positions at once, until the collapse. How do you know we didn't evolve natural insulation of quantum decoherence?

Sprinkle a dusting of chocolate on a plate and put it in the microwave, and take out the rotating plate. You will notice a pattern of melted chocolate where the microwaves amplified and a pattern of dead zones where the waves didn't amplify. This is why they put rotating plates in the microwave. The heat waves are smaller than microwaves, but still large enough to allow significantly probable dead zones.

As for heat/decoherence, if you have a flat top stove, drop a drop of water on the red hot burner. If it's anything like mine, you will see the drop explode into many smaller drops. Most of them just very quickly evaporate, but there is sometimes one that finds what looks like a dead zone of heat waves, and it will actually just sit there for a few seconds on the red hot element. It finds cooler place where the heat waves did not quite amplify like the rest of the surface.

 

[Juma]

Think about it; how is it that we can "know" about multiple particles (strings or whatever the basic elements of the universe are)? In other words, why do groups of particles that make up a mental thought have this holistic, discontinuous and metaphysical mental connection with phenomena outside itself.

It doesnt!

Why are you believing this holistic crap?

We know of our perceptions.

Evolution has forced us to predict how we are perceived. There is where meaning (intentionality) comes from.

 

[ryan]

Think about it; how is it that we can "know" about multiple particles (strings or whatever the basic elements of the universe are)? In other words, why do groups of particles that make up a mental thought have this holistic, discontinuous and metaphysical mental connection with phenomena outside itself.

It doesnt!

Why are you believing this holistic crap?

We know of our perceptions.

Evolution has forced us to predict how we are perceived. There is where meaning (intentionality) comes from.

This is the "hard problem". As far as reductionistic science is concerned, there is no explanation for a thought arising from a random group of disconnected particles. Entanglement is a possible explanation of this truly emergent phenomenon.

 

[fromderinside]

What is it about no evidence macro behavior exhibits anything but deterministic behavior that confuses you?

Its a moot point that deterministic possibilities may exist in the Quantum world since there is no evidence they impact what is happening in the macro world. My view is improbable QM events at any time impinging on macro behavior are not enough, by several orders of magnitude, to influence macro behavior.

Think of it this way. In the same way that macro measurement of Quantum states requires a probalistic math to make sense of the Quantum world quantum events cannot be seen in macro events except as an impossible to realize statistical probability.

If you have enough particles entangled together, you can have a macro scale object having significant probabilities in being in different positions at once, until the collapse. How do you know we didn't evolve natural insulation of quantum decoherence?

Sprinkle a dusting of chocolate on a plate and put it in the microwave, and take out the rotating plate. You will notice a pattern of melted chocolate where the microwaves amplified and a pattern of dead zones where the waves didn't amplify. This is why they put rotating plates in the microwave. The heat waves are smaller than microwaves, but still large enough to allow significantly probable dead zones.

As for heat/decoherence, if you have a flat top stove, drop a drop of water on the red hot burner. If it's anything like mine, you will see the drop explode into many smaller drops. Most of them just very quickly evaporate, but there is sometimes one that finds what looks like a dead zone of heat waves, and it will actually just sit there for a few seconds on the red hot element. It finds cooler place where the heat waves did not quite amplify like the rest of the surface.

Read my post. There is NO evidence of quantum entanglement or uncertainty impinging on the macro world. The gulf between the macro world and the QM world is too wide. There is no evidence of quantum effects disturbing information leading to Standard Theory which is why it is so robust. If a new math is required for one it is required for the other to describe why things are different there. As for drops exploding, the exploding particles follow standard theory predictions.

 

[fromderinside]

It doesnt!

Why are you believing this holistic crap?

We know of our perceptions.

Evolution has forced us to predict how we are perceived. There is where meaning (intentionality) comes from.

This is the "hard problem". As far as reductionistic science is concerned, there is no explanation for a thought arising from a random group of disconnected particles. Entanglement is a possible explanation of this truly emergent phenomenon.

If it were a hard problem it would take much manipulation for explaining. Intention is an invention devised by a mind having only the past as evidence. Causality isn't explained by conditions existent at time t=0. Things from that point on are determined. History would be looking the other way which cannot be certain since many points of reference can be traced. However, each path is deterministic in nature.

 

[ryan]

If you have enough particles entangled together, you can have a macro scale object having significant probabilities in being in different positions at once, until the collapse. How do you know we didn't evolve natural insulation of quantum decoherence?

Sprinkle a dusting of chocolate on a plate and put it in the microwave, and take out the rotating plate. You will notice a pattern of melted chocolate where the microwaves amplified and a pattern of dead zones where the waves didn't amplify. This is why they put rotating plates in the microwave. The heat waves are smaller than microwaves, but still large enough to allow significantly probable dead zones.

As for heat/decoherence, if you have a flat top stove, drop a drop of water on the red hot burner. If it's anything like mine, you will see the drop explode into many smaller drops. Most of them just very quickly evaporate, but there is sometimes one that finds what looks like a dead zone of heat waves, and it will actually just sit there for a few seconds on the red hot element. It finds cooler place where the heat waves did not quite amplify like the rest of the surface.

Read my post. There is NO evidence of quantum entanglement or uncertainty impinging on the macro world. The gulf between the macro world and the QM world is too wide. There is no evidence of quantum effects disturbing information leading to Standard Theory which is why it is so robust. If a new math is required for one it is required for the other to describe why things are different there. As for drops exploding, the exploding particles follow standard theory predictions.

They are going to try to teleport a microorganism, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0990-x . Why not? Maybe this happens naturally.

 

[ryan]

This is the "hard problem". As far as reductionistic science is concerned, there is no explanation for a thought arising from a random group of disconnected particles. Entanglement is a possible explanation of this truly emergent phenomenon.

If it were a hard problem it would take much manipulation for explaining. Intention is an invention devised by a mind having only the past as evidence. Causality isn't explained by conditions existent at time t=0. Things from that point on are determined. History would be looking the other way which cannot be certain since many points of reference can be traced. However, each path is deterministic in nature.

So how do you think we can know about the past? There is no arrangement of particles that gives us a notion of the past. Again, entanglement can answer this. Entanglement gives us an instantaneous present and past existence. Entanglement is an object that time does not fully affect like it does other objects with low relativistic speads.