There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[fromderinside]

And for the nth time, I have only ever argued for the possibility of free will; i never said anything about what "is so".

What may be logically possible is being shown to not be actually possible. There is no evidence that QM intersects macro world in which humans exist as other than determined. Until you show there are experiments where QM principles actually act at the level of the macro world you are preaching to an empty church.

 

[ryan]

Not true, at one time or another I have provided links to experiments, case studies and commentary by researchers to support what I say....as well you should know, considering how long these 'debates' have been running on this forum. Including you, but now it's like the past has been wiped, every day a groundhog day.

I even provided a link with quotes describing why quantum effects are a minimal aspect of brain function and that quantum effects do not process information or make decisions. That being the role of the whole brain, architecture and electrochemical activity, inputs and processing of information from the external world and internal states, organs, limbs, etc.

First of all, you quoted a blogger from a magazine. If I quoted from the Discovery Magazine when writing science articles, I would have failed and been kicked out of the university.

Second, the blogger discusses a wayyy different mechanism for QM free will, a butterfly effect from a QM flux with less energy than a photon. You know damn well that has nothing to do with my argument.

Third, you are picking and choosing what is good science while posting magazine bloggers.

 

[DBT]

Just because Hameroff claims that there is a backward time effect does not mean that this is so. Science does not work like that.

And for the nth time, I have only ever argued for the possibility of free will; i never said anything about what "is so".

You are the one with the certainty which just can't win as long as this subject is overlapping into philosophy.

I stick to the evidence as it stands, not using fringe science or speculation in an attempt to justify something that I want or desire to be true. I don't want or desire anything that is not supported by evidence. Something is either true or false regardless of what we hope for or desire.

I know that you have not explicitly claimed that free will is a reality but your hope and need for that to be true comes accross in your posts.

Why it matters so much is not clear, because as I said, we have something quite remarkable; a brain that's able to form a virtual experience of the world and self and interact with it, learning and adapting. That is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[DBT]

Not true, at one time or another I have provided links to experiments, case studies and commentary by researchers to support what I say....as well you should know, considering how long these 'debates' have been running on this forum. Including you, but now it's like the past has been wiped, every day a groundhog day.

I even provided a link with quotes describing why quantum effects are a minimal aspect of brain function and that quantum effects do not process information or make decisions. That being the role of the whole brain, architecture and electrochemical activity, inputs and processing of information from the external world and internal states, organs, limbs, etc.

First of all, you quoted a blogger from a magazine.

What you fail to add is the most important part....the blogger is talking about a paper by neuroscientist Peter Clarke with quotes and references. The blogger is not important. The blogger is irrelevant. The necessary information is provided in reference to the neuroscientist and his paper;

Here is the paper from the link in the blog page, the blog page, if you like, being merely a conduit to the article;


Neuroscience, quantum indeterminism and the Cartesian soul.
Clarke PG1.

Abstract
Quantum indeterminism is frequently invoked as a solution to the problem of how a disembodied soul might interact with the brain (as Descartes proposed), and is sometimes invoked in theories of libertarian free will even when they do not involve dualistic assumptions. Taking as example the Eccles-Beck model of interaction between self (or soul) and brain at the level of synaptic exocytosis, I here evaluate the plausibility of these approaches. I conclude that Heisenbergian uncertainty is too small to affect synaptic function, and that amplification by chaos or by other means does not provide a solution to this problem. Furthermore, even if Heisenbergian effects did modify brain functioning, the changes would be swamped by those due to thermal noise. Cells and neural circuits have powerful noise-resistance mechanisms, that are adequate protection against thermal noise and must therefore be more than sufficient to buffer against Heisenbergian effects. Other forms of quantum indeterminism must be considered, because these can be much greater than Heisenbergian uncertainty, but these have not so far been shown to play a role in the brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And for the nth time, I have only ever argued for the possibility of free will; i never said anything about what "is so".

What may be logically possible is being shown to not be actually possible. There is no evidence that QM intersects macro world in which humans exist as other than determined. Until you show there are experiments where QM principles actually act at the level of the macro world you are preaching to an empty church.

I would have thought that any QM experiment regarded as conclusive had to be regarded ipso facto as a case of QM affecting the macroscopic world of the experimenters.

No brainer.
EB

 

[ryan]

Personally I think there are at least two distinct processing strategies going on. but I am absolutely certain that a one to one correlation will always be impossible to achieve, this has nothing to do with brains and everything to to with even establishing correlation with a private mental event - the best you can manage is correlation with the behaviour (and linguistic behaviour) based on the judgements about it.

Even if we were after this what are we looking for: type type, type token and so on. It's a minefield. Hell, my position is that half of it is formally identical, just from different perspectives and half of it is simply emergent and irreducible.

Finding neural correlates to the consciousness is very important and sought after in the science of consciousness, and probably the most important and sought after thing.

So to understand it scientifically, we need to specifically know the correlations so that we can make predictions and such, not to mention how important this would be for proper psychological medicines/interventions.

But it really is methodologically impossible to make even a correlation except for your own case and even then you are merely indefeasible as how it seems to you is beyond question. That's just not where science should be applied.

I think you are being too absolute in thinking about this. Even in science we have to make certain assumptions. You have to assume theories that lead to new theories are right, and a scientist has to assume that crucial observations of an experiment were not just imagined.

So I found an article about the methods used to empirically differentiate correlates of the conscious and unconsciousness of the "global workspace". http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/final_revised_proof.pdf

"Signal detection theory (SDT) approaches" on the 3rd page down is quite interesting.

Well, there is no top-down processing necessary to explain anything physical (except for new ideas of quantum cognition) which brings up the question of why we have this higher perception in the first place.

I'm not sure I understand?

The physical correlates of "emergent whole" of the conscious experience is not going to be able to do something physically different than what the parts do, with the exception of quantum mechanics specifically entanglement.

Without free will, this higher mental order is not at all useful evolutionarily speaking.

Really? how about it just being how it feels to have a brain that shares information in a timely and effective manner across itself. Maybe it's a way of avoiding neglect, running learning and error correction strategies or allows for fast and dirty prediction and explanation of self and others?

Without QM, you will only do as your parts are set to do. The unnecessary emerging property of the mind (assuming the mind's existence) would be just a spectator scientifically.

Morerover, the whole should never do more than its parts physically (except for quantum entanglement).

Why on earth not? Have you never baked a cake or looked at a beautiful work of art?

In reducible Newtonian mechanics, wholes/groups of matter do not exist objectively the way they do with QM.

 

[Juma]

Yeah.... a PROPOSED. Come back when it is CONFIRMED.

If you knew what I am arguing for, you would know that an unfalsified model is sufficient for my argument. You chose the wrong side to dispute because all I ever argued for is a possibility for free will to be true.

An unfalsified model? You havent showed an ”unfalsified model”, you have shown pure fantasy.

An unfalsified midel need to be in accordance with current physics.

 

[fromderinside]

And for the nth time, I have only ever argued for the possibility of free will; i never said anything about what "is so".

What may be logically possible is being shown to not be actually possible. There is no evidence that QM intersects macro world in which humans exist as other than determined. Until you show there are experiments where QM principles actually act at the level of the macro world you are preaching to an empty church.

I would have thought that any QM experiment regarded as conclusive had to be regarded ipso facto as a case of QM affecting the macroscopic world of the experimenters.

EB

No. Read some of DBT's recent posts for reasons what you wrote is not so.

Hell, even macro event existence is not proof that it exists. Look at auditory and visuion masking studies it f you are having problems with my statement.

 

[ryan]

Just because Hameroff claims that there is a backward time effect does not mean that this is so. Science does not work like that.

And for the nth time, I have only ever argued for the possibility of free will; i never said anything about what "is so".

You are the one with the certainty which just can't win as long as this subject is overlapping into philosophy.

I stick to the evidence as it stands, not using fringe science or speculation in an attempt to justify something that I want or desire to be true. I don't want or desire anything that is not supported by evidence. Something is either true or false regardless of what we hope for or desire.

I know that you have not explicitly claimed that free will is a reality but your hope and need for that to be true comes accross in your posts.

Why it matters so much is not clear, because as I said, we have something quite remarkable; a brain that's able to form a virtual experience of the world and self and interact with it, learning and adapting. That is nothing to sneeze at.

And you claimed over and over again that you Don't want free will. I Don't bring that up because it is the argument that matters.

 

[DBT]

I stick to the evidence as it stands, not using fringe science or speculation in an attempt to justify something that I want or desire to be true. I don't want or desire anything that is not supported by evidence. Something is either true or false regardless of what we hope for or desire.

I know that you have not explicitly claimed that free will is a reality but your hope and need for that to be true comes accross in your posts.

Why it matters so much is not clear, because as I said, we have something quite remarkable; a brain that's able to form a virtual experience of the world and self and interact with it, learning and adapting. That is nothing to sneeze at.

And you claimed over and over again that you Don't want free will. I Don't bring that up because it is the argument that matters.

Where have I repeatedly said that I Don't want free will? One example will do. Thank you.

I did say that the term free will is irrelevant for the reasons given....therefore wanting or not wanting is irrelevant, why on Earth would I say I don't want something that I argue is irrelevant?

It makes no sense.

 

[Treedbear]

...

Without free will, this higher mental order is not at all useful evolutionarily speaking.

Really? how about it just being how it feels to have a brain that shares information in a timely and effective manner across itself. Maybe it's a way of avoiding neglect, running learning and error correction strategies or allows for fast and dirty prediction and explanation of self and others?
...

That. ^ No agency required.

 

[Subsymbolic]

...

Without free will, this higher mental order is not at all useful evolutionarily speaking.

Really? how about it just being how it feels to have a brain that shares information in a timely and effective manner across itself. Maybe it's a way of avoiding neglect, running learning and error correction strategies or allows for fast and dirty prediction and explanation of self and others?
...

That. ^ No agency required.

Now that is odd! you see I'd say that learning and error correction strategies are most of what agency means. I'll give that error correction is non obvious, I'll lean on Clark again for an explanation:

http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Whatever next.pdf

but learning? Perhaps a quick account of what you think learning is, and what it is for, if you don't think it is all about tuning (at a subsymbolic level) and informing (at a symbolic level) agency?

 

[ryan]

Not true, at one time or another I have provided links to experiments, case studies and commentary by researchers to support what I say....as well you should know, considering how long these 'debates' have been running on this forum. Including you, but now it's like the past has been wiped, every day a groundhog day.

I even provided a link with quotes describing why quantum effects are a minimal aspect of brain function and that quantum effects do not process information or make decisions. That being the role of the whole brain, architecture and electrochemical activity, inputs and processing of information from the external world and internal states, organs, limbs, etc.

First of all, you quoted a blogger from a magazine.

What you fail to add is the most important part....the blogger is talking about a paper by neuroscientist Peter Clarke with quotes and references. The blogger is not important. The blogger is irrelevant. The necessary information is provided in reference to the neuroscientist and his paper;

Here is the paper from the link in the blog page, the blog page, if you like, being merely a conduit to the article;


Neuroscience, quantum indeterminism and the Cartesian soul.
Clarke PG1.

Abstract
Quantum indeterminism is frequently invoked as a solution to the problem of how a disembodied soul might interact with the brain (as Descartes proposed), and is sometimes invoked in theories of libertarian free will even when they do not involve dualistic assumptions. Taking as example the Eccles-Beck model of interaction between self (or soul) and brain at the level of synaptic exocytosis, I here evaluate the plausibility of these approaches. I conclude that Heisenbergian uncertainty is too small to affect synaptic function, and that amplification by chaos or by other means does not provide a solution to this problem. Furthermore, even if Heisenbergian effects did modify brain functioning, the changes would be swamped by those due to thermal noise. Cells and neural circuits have powerful noise-resistance mechanisms, that are adequate protection against thermal noise and must therefore be more than sufficient to buffer against Heisenbergian effects. Other forms of quantum indeterminism must be considered, because these can be much greater than Heisenbergian uncertainty, but these have not so far been shown to play a role in the brain.

I see that this was written in 2013 and it mentions, "To date, there is no evidence that such quantum processes are involved in neuron-to-neuron communication or brain function."

But in 2014 evidence was found by Hameroff and Penrose and found and confirmed later again by a university in Japan in 2016.

And it was also written after Fisher's 2015 research article that suggests the theoretical possibility of quantum coherence using entangled Posener molecules.

 

[ryan]

DNT, also read a newer article, titled,

"Quantum Information Processes in Protein Microtubules of Brain Neurons"

And says in the abstract,

"This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. We analyze Orch OR in light of advances and developments in quantum physics, computational neuroscience and quantum biology. Much attention is also devoted to the ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electroencephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness."

from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-287-736-9_60

 

[untermensche]

DNT, also read a newer article, titled,

"Quantum Information Processes in Protein Microtubules of Brain Neurons"

And says in the abstract,

"This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. We analyze Orch OR in light of advances and developments in quantum physics, computational neuroscience and quantum biology. Much attention is also devoted to the ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electroencephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness."

from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-287-736-9_60

Why make such protests?

Freeman Dyson has said he would find it astonishing if the brain did not use some quantum properties of matter.

Since no model for consciousness can be made from any known data it is very possible it will only be modeled using quantum properties.

But there is no way to know without any working model.

Data is meaningless without a model to try to apply it to.

 

[ryan]

Yeah.... a PROPOSED. Come back when it is CONFIRMED.

If you knew what I am arguing for, you would know that an unfalsified model is sufficient for my argument. You chose the wrong side to dispute because all I ever argued for is a possibility for free will to be true.

An unfalsified model? You havent showed an ”unfalsified model”, you have shown pure fantasy.

An unfalsified midel need to be in accordance with current physics.

You are just going to discredit the model and call it fantasy? Give me an f***ing break. How about you actually falsify it, and then I will believe you.

 

[ryan]

DNT, also read a newer article, titled,

"Quantum Information Processes in Protein Microtubules of Brain Neurons"

And says in the abstract,

"This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. We analyze Orch OR in light of advances and developments in quantum physics, computational neuroscience and quantum biology. Much attention is also devoted to the ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electroencephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness."

from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-287-736-9_60

Why make such protests?

Freeman Dyson has said he would find it astonishing if the brain did not use some quantum properties of matter.

Since no model for consciousness can be made from any known data it is very possible it will only be modeled using quantum properties.

But there is no way to know without any working model.

Data is meaningless without a model to try to apply it to.

And who the hell is claiming it is totally scientific?

If you know my argument, you will know that I only ever argued for a possibility, an opening, logical possibility using scientific knowns and unknowns - philosophy!

This is a philosophy of science type argument, not a scientific one!

 

[ryan]

Moreover, do you know that everying is philosophy before it is classified as scientific? You have to begin in the moonshot world of philosophy. You find a rational reason (philosophy) to pursue a hypothesis, in that order every time.

Critical thinking and intuition can go a long ways even though a lot of the time it might be misleading.

 

[untermensche]

DNT, also read a newer article, titled,

"Quantum Information Processes in Protein Microtubules of Brain Neurons"

And says in the abstract,

"This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. We analyze Orch OR in light of advances and developments in quantum physics, computational neuroscience and quantum biology. Much attention is also devoted to the ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electroencephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness."

from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-287-736-9_60

Why make such protests?

Freeman Dyson has said he would find it astonishing if the brain did not use some quantum properties of matter.

Since no model for consciousness can be made from any known data it is very possible it will only be modeled using quantum properties.

But there is no way to know without any working model.

Data is meaningless without a model to try to apply it to.

And who the hell is claiming it is totally scientific?

If you know my argument, you will know that I only ever argued for a possibility, an opening, logical possibility using scientific knowns and unknowns - philosophy!

This is a philosophy of science type argument, not a scientific one!

I support the position that quantum properties of matter probably, not just possibly, have something to do with the production of consciousness.

And while science is terribly flawed and very incomplete it is all we have to explain experienced phenomena.

Nothing else is able to explain anything.

 

[ryan]

And who the hell is claiming it is totally scientific?

If you know my argument, you will know that I only ever argued for a possibility, an opening, logical possibility using scientific knowns and unknowns - philosophy!

This is a philosophy of science type argument, not a scientific one!

I support the position that quantum properties of matter probably, not just possibly, have something to do with the production of consciousness.

And while science is terribly flawed and very incomplete it is all we have to explain experienced phenomena.

Nothing else is able to explain anything.

From past posts I have read of yours I know this about you which is why I was so annoyed when you said this, "and silly little insignificant things like quantum properties of matter can't possibly be involved."