Search results for query: *

I have already explained.

Wow! This is shocking B.S. even for the internet.

You would save his team time and the university a lot of money by telling them what you know.

I just did. Then there is the Penrose and Hameroff paper. It actually supports free will using quantum mechanics.

You are not considering new theoretical models. You are just claiming that they are false by not letting them have a chance.

If not neural activity, then what do you think is responsible for decision making? There is SO MUCH good information I can link claiming otherwise. Are you sure you meant what you said?

Just because things don't appear one way to you doesn't mean that they aren't that way.

A neuron is a cell, so are you saying that the ability to choose does not extend to neural activity. And the theory is that the neurons may be entangled, not just molecules.

Mathew Fisher explains this in the link that I keep posting https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers

The binding of separated neurons firing that give rise to a holistic conscious control is not understood. An extremely convenient explanation is if these neurons were connected as one through quantum entaglement. It seems to solve one of the binding problems quite nicely.

Entire neurons may be being coupled (does not mean only two) according to https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers . That's a pretty high level where consciousness is concerned. It's not just the lower levels that are entangled.

If I am anything, I am at least my neurons and its electrochemical activity. That is not my environment.

Define "you" and that should answer your question.

Is it possible that I have 3 coins in my pocket? I actually have 2, so it was not true even though it was rationally possible. You were not given enough information, but would you ever say that it wasn't possible for me to have 3 coins in my pocket?

If there is nobody to explain why the ship can't travel faster than light, then it's possible for those that don't know.

And what I have been saying for years and years is that I am only arguing for the possibility for free will. As people come with objections I try to overcome them to only allow the possibility of FW to exist, not to prove that it does.

I am not sure what you are getting at. If my consciousness is a bunch of neurons and the firing of these neurons are not fully determined by the environmental causes, then how is this not a human having the ability to have chosen otherwise, in at least some instances?

It talks about entire neurons being entangled with other neurons.

One should expect a choice to be made with free will would not be determined. Given the definition I am using for FW, it would seem to allow the choice to be a different one. Read the "Entangled Neurons" part of https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers

You thought you knew things in this area when you didn't. Do you have anything to back your claim up, or do you want me to just trust you.