A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

I would think that we are hardwired with most of what we do: instincts, rationality, survival, etc. But, and this will answer your concerns below, we may have all kinds freedoms such as decision to watch a movie, drink a second glass of wine, call up an old friend, etc.

That describes decision making, which is not in question. Nor is it a conscious process, but a conscious report....neural information processing weighing options on the basis of a set of criteria, cost to benefit, pleasure versus pain, attraction versus aversion in order to select the suitable option. An example of rational will, and at times irrational will, but not 'free will' because it is bound by neural states conditions and not a free agent who orchestrates the process. Your conscious experience of thought and deliberation being a subjective/mental representation of the underlying processing.

Which is demonstrated by chemical changes or structural faults that manifest as an inability to think clearly, or make rational decisions.

An example of irrational will rather than rational will, but it is never 'free will'

 

[ryan]

I would think that we are hardwired with most of what we do: instincts, rationality, survival, etc. But, and this will answer your concerns below, we may have all kinds freedoms such as decision to watch a movie, drink a second glass of wine, call up an old friend, etc.

That describes decision making, which is not in question. Nor is it a conscious process, but a conscious report....neural information processing weighing options on the basis of a set of criteria, cost to benefit, pleasure versus pain, attraction versus aversion in order to select the suitable option. An example of rational will, and at times irrational will, but not 'free will' because it is bound by neural states conditions and not a free agent who orchestrates the process. Your conscious experience of thought and deliberation being a subjective/mental representation of the underlying processing.

When you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process, you will always roughly understand why you did A and not B. But that's the illusion of classical mechanics and is probably why QM is so strange. When we look back, we know what path the particle took. But when it's happening, the particle is not taking any one path. You look back at where the particle ended up and immediately think that nothing weird is happening because the particle is eventually detected in a single position, and you will think that it only took one path.

 

[DBT]

That describes decision making, which is not in question. Nor is it a conscious process, but a conscious report....neural information processing weighing options on the basis of a set of criteria, cost to benefit, pleasure versus pain, attraction versus aversion in order to select the suitable option. An example of rational will, and at times irrational will, but not 'free will' because it is bound by neural states conditions and not a free agent who orchestrates the process. Your conscious experience of thought and deliberation being a subjective/mental representation of the underlying processing.

When you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process, you will always roughly understand why you did A and not B. But that's the illusion of classical mechanics and is probably why QM is so strange. When we look back, we know what path the particle took. But when it's happening, the particle is not taking any one path. You look back at where the particle ended up and immediately think that nothing weird is happening because the particle is eventually detected in a single position, and you will think that it only took one path.

When you say ''you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process'' you are still implying an independent agent, a 'you' who has access to 'thought processes' and is able to analyze these thought processes... when it is actually the brain that is forming both the thoughts and the experience of a 'you' who is examining thought processes, that is generating both you and the conscious experience of examining of thought processes. Which may not be an 'objective' examination, the very same biases and flawed or limited perspectives that formed the original thoughts being present and active in the examination. The result being a mere rationalization of past decisions.

That is the illusion of conscious self as the orchestrator of thought, the Captain of the processes of thought. It is the illusion of conscious control and 'free will' that is exposed in the presence of structural or chemical alterations to the actual agency: the neural networks and information processing activity of a brain. This is what you keep dodging and dancing around, but never facing or addressing.

 

[Perspicuo]

I know it's not. Free will would appear random to everyone else.

If free will is down to "How the heck should I know why I did it, I'm just a random generator of movements!", then the concept is more than useless.

The agent determines what will happen.

What agent? You're going around in circles. This, by the way, is the part of the argumentative circle where you incur in petitio principii.

There is no evidence there is an agent. What you have is an organism who is affected by experience (the reason why we bother rearing and educating the young, and punishing the old with social consequences). The small remainder of "unpredictability" is due to chaos and is therefore stochastic. The evidence of this is all around.

Whereas all free will has is a chorus of hallelluias. If not, please supply any evidence (falsifiable, because if not, it's not evidence, but mere [1] uncontrolled observation [at best] or [2] wordplay [at worst]).

 

[ryan]

When you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process, you will always roughly understand why you did A and not B. But that's the illusion of classical mechanics and is probably why QM is so strange. When we look back, we know what path the particle took. But when it's happening, the particle is not taking any one path. You look back at where the particle ended up and immediately think that nothing weird is happening because the particle is eventually detected in a single position, and you will think that it only took one path.

When you say ''you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process'' you are still implying an independent agent, a 'you' who has access to 'thought processes' and is able to analyze these thought processes... when it is actually the brain that is forming both the thoughts and the experience of a 'you' who is examining thought processes, that is generating both you and the conscious experience of examining of thought processes. Which may not be an 'objective' examination, the very same biases and flawed or limited perspectives that formed the original thoughts being present and active in the examination. The result being a mere rationalization of past decisions.

Right, but there are many different ways to rationalize something. You might be free to choose what rational reasoning you use. I agree that evolution gave us some "hardwiring", but that never feels like the free will that I am talking about.

That is the illusion of conscious self as the orchestrator of thought, the Captain of the processes of thought. It is the illusion of conscious control and 'free will' that is exposed in the presence of structural or chemical alterations to the actual agency: the neural networks and information processing activity of a brain. This is what you keep dodging and dancing around, but never facing or addressing.

I have addressed this many times. It's the quantum randomness underlying these processes that would be just a manifestation of free will in action.

 

[DBT]

When you say ''you look in hindsight and analyze your thought process'' you are still implying an independent agent, a 'you' who has access to 'thought processes' and is able to analyze these thought processes... when it is actually the brain that is forming both the thoughts and the experience of a 'you' who is examining thought processes, that is generating both you and the conscious experience of examining of thought processes. Which may not be an 'objective' examination, the very same biases and flawed or limited perspectives that formed the original thoughts being present and active in the examination. The result being a mere rationalization of past decisions.

Right, but there are many different ways to rationalize something. You might be free to choose what rational reasoning you use. I agree that evolution gave us some "hardwiring", but that never feels like the free will that I am talking about.

You still imply the presence of an agent that's independent from the brain and its activity.

What you feel is what the brain is doing. If the system malfunctions, so do you. When the system is functioning normally, it feels like you have control of 'your' thoughts but this illusion is exposed whenever underlying faults arise. They need not be chronic, simply forgetting where you left your keys is a result of an underlying connection failure, which may be made a moment later and you remember where they are.

I have addressed this many times. It's the quantum randomness underlying these processes that would be just a manifestation of free will in action.

You have never addressed it. You have asserted your belief many times, but you have never made the connection between quantum randomness, being universal in relation to certain aspects of quantum particles - which evolve probabilistically, Schrodinger's equation, etc - or described it in terms of 'free will' or decision making or will formation in general....

 

[fromderinside]

So Lucky, the agent neuron with the developing quantum event, is storing up potential at the axon hillock for about 700 of his closest friends when, whoops, Turdfuck, his neighbor and partner in crime, fires first messing up the nice little quantum event that was about to take place.

Nerve cops came, investigate, and leave leaving the whole brain abuzz with the disaster. Turns out quantum events almost never arrive on time or place. So the whole investigation became moot. Another theory goes poof. Free will willy goes all firing causing a serious bout of tinnitus for harry the guy with this nervy brain. WTF.

Oh. .... and for relationships between consciousness and QM, one is a model which still produces reliable outcomes all the time while the other is just chance, same statistical model though, since consciousness isn't real it's only a mostly discounted a working hypothesis about how the brain works.

So ryan any thought about how to recover QM particle effects (whatever they are) in such a fucked up brain? Put another way how do you explain away all those cat's dying in your dreamland of effective free will?

 

[ryan]

I know it's not. Free will would appear random to everyone else.



The agent determines what will happen.

What agent? You're going around in circles. This, by the way, is the part of the argumentative circle where you incur in petitio principii.

There is no evidence there is an agent. What you have is an organism who is affected by experience (the reason why we bother rearing and educating the young, and punishing the old with social consequences). The small remainder of "unpredictability" is due to chaos and is therefore stochastic. The evidence of this is all around.

Whereas all free will has is a chorus of hallelluias. If not, please supply any evidence (falsifiable, because if not, it's not evidence, but mere [1] uncontrolled observation [at best] or [2] wordplay [at worst]).

x + 1 = 2

Let's try x = 1

1 + 1 = 2

You have to assume your answer and see if it fits in the observation.

 

[ryan]

Right, but there are many different ways to rationalize something. You might be free to choose what rational reasoning you use. I agree that evolution gave us some "hardwiring", but that never feels like the free will that I am talking about.

You still imply the presence of an agent that's independent from the brain and its activity.

What you feel is what the brain is doing. If the system malfunctions, so do you. When the system is functioning normally, it feels like you have control of 'your' thoughts but this illusion is exposed whenever underlying faults arise. They need not be chronic, simply forgetting where you left your keys is a result of an underlying connection failure, which may be made a moment later and you remember where they are.

I would think that we imagine an ideal chain of events occurring from the models and information in our brains about ourselves and the environment around us. But we sometimes miss some variables. A mistake may be from an incomplete simulation of the outcome from our intentions.

I have addressed this many times. It's the quantum randomness underlying these processes that would be just a manifestation of free will in action.

You have never addressed it. You have asserted your belief many times, but you have never made the connection between quantum randomness, being universal in relation to certain aspects of quantum particles - which evolve probabilistically, Schrodinger's equation, etc - or described it in terms of 'free will' or decision making or will formation in general....

We have went over this too many times. The property of unpredictability by an outside source is a property that QM has and apparently may be property of the consciousness. Free will also has this property, at least in the typical definitions of free will.

If this is not what you want, please explain it differently.

 

[ryan]

So Lucky, the agent neuron with the developing quantum event, is storing up potential at the axon hillock for about 700 of his closest friends when, whoops, Turdfuck, his neighbor and partner in crime, fires first messing up the nice little quantum event that was about to take place.

Nerve cops came, investigate, and leave leaving the whole brain abuzz with the disaster. Turns out quantum events almost never arrive on time or place. So the whole investigation became moot. Another theory goes poof. Free will willy goes all firing causing a serious bout of tinnitus for harry the guy with this nervy brain. WTF.

Oh. .... and for relationships between consciousness and QM, one is a model which still produces reliable outcomes all the time while the other is just chance, same statistical model though, since consciousness isn't real it's only a mostly discounted a working hypothesis about how the brain works.

So ryan any thought about how to recover QM particle effects (whatever they are) in such a fucked up brain? Put another way how do you explain away all those cat's dying in your dreamland of effective free will?

I have no idea what you are asking.

 

[Kharakov]

So ryan any thought about how to recover QM particle effects (whatever they are) in such a fucked up brain? Put another way how do you explain away all those cat's dying in your dreamland of effective free will?

I have no idea what you are asking.

He's obviously rhetorically asking how QM particle effects would affect a brain that is already humming with classical level phenomena that will outweigh any QM effects.

However, the fact that you are contemplating QM effects obviously implies that at the classic level, QM wags the dog, logs the frogs, and lags the God....

 

[ryan]

I have no idea what you are asking.

He's obviously rhetorically asking how QM particle effects would affect a brain that is already humming with classical level phenomena that will outweigh any QM effects.

Are you saying that "f***ed up brain" = "a brain humming with classical level phenomena"? If so, then my guesses were way off.

I enjoy dissecting poetry, and I even admire the creativity of it. But I don't have the patience or time for it as I spend enough time just trying to understand straightforward informative posts.

However, the fact that you are contemplating QM effects obviously implies that at the classic level, QM wags the dog, logs the frogs, and lags the God....

There is scientific evidence that demonstrate QM as part of conscious processes.

 

[Kharakov]

He's obviously rhetorically asking how QM particle effects would affect a brain that is already humming with classical level phenomena that will outweigh any QM effects.

Are you saying that "f***ed up brain" = "a brain humming with classical level phenomena"? If so, then my guesses were way off.

Nah. It's from the context. Read the story he wrote about the brain:

So Lucky, the agent neuron with the developing quantum event, is storing up potential at the axon hillock for about 700 of his closest friends when, whoops, Turdfuck, his neighbor and partner in crime, fires first messing up the nice little quantum event that was about to take place.

Nerve cops came, investigate, and leave leaving the whole brain abuzz with the disaster. Turns out quantum events almost never arrive on time or place. So the whole investigation became moot. Another theory goes poof. Free will willy goes all firing causing a serious bout of tinnitus for harry the guy with this nervy brain. WTF.

Oh. .... and for relationships between consciousness and QM, one is a model which still produces reliable outcomes all the time while the other is just chance, same statistical model though, since consciousness isn't real it's only a mostly discounted a working hypothesis about how the brain works.

I enjoy dissecting poetry, and I even admire the creativity of it. But I don't have the patience or time for it as I spend enough time just trying to understand straightforward informative posts.

A single particle level quantum event does not change the course of a river. Capeesh?

However, the fact that you are contemplating QM effects obviously implies that at the classic level, QM wags the dog, logs the frog, and lags the God....

There is scientific evidence that demonstrate QM as part of conscious processes.

QM != random
QM involvement != free will

 

[ryan]

A single particle level quantum event does not change the course of a river. Capeesh?

If your interpretation is accurate, then I am too burnt out on this to catch him up.

There is scientific evidence that demonstrate QM as part of conscious processes.

QM != random
QM involvement != free will

This has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.

 

[DBT]

This has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.

Ho, hum, no connection has yet been made between 'random' and ''decision making' - nor 'random' and 'human behaviour' - nor 'random' and 'will' (the drive or impulse to act)...yet you persist in asserting; ''this has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.''

Not even a loose connection has been shown, not even a hint of a relationship between the decision making process, which requires information and not randomness...which is just 'noise.'

I've asked for a description of the relationship may time, to no avail. Just assertions.

Ryan, you need to do better.

Describe the necessity of randomness to the decision making process. Describe the relationship between randomness, decision making and will, and explain precisely why randomness transforms the brains decision making process and associated 'will' into 'free will'

I eagerly await your response.

 

[ryan]

This has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.

Ho, hum, no connection has yet been made between 'random' and ''decision making'

There is evidence showing that QM plays a role within the consciousness. How do you know that it is not a part of the decision making process?

Remember, I am only making suggestions; it is up to you to prove them false due to your certainty for the negative.

- nor 'random' and 'human behaviour' - nor 'random' and 'will' (the drive or impulse to act)...yet you persist in asserting; ''this has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.''

I have explained the connection many times between randomness and free will. We both agreed, through thought experiment, that free will would probably have the property of randomness.

Describe the necessity of randomness to the decision making process. Describe the relationship between randomness, decision making and will, and explain precisely why randomness transforms the brains decision making process and associated 'will' into 'free will'

I have explained this too many times. Every time I answer, you change the subject and then ask me the same questions all over again.

 

[DBT]

Ho, hum, no connection has yet been made between 'random' and ''decision making'

There is evidence showing that QM plays a role within the consciousness. How do you know that it is not a part of the decision making process?

Quantum plays a role in everything that exists...as the fundamental building 'material' of the Universe. It is not quantum particles/wavicles that make decisions, rocks are composed of quantum wavicles, but cannot make decisions.

It is the specific structure and electrochemical activity of specialist cells, connections, transmitters, synapses, etc, that enable decision making, and not the fact that everything is made of waveicles.

It is the changes to macro activity of the brain that determines and alters it functioning as a processor, and not quantum randomness or probability, which is common to all. The difference between you and someone else is not determined by quantum composition/state, being common to all, but your inherited DNA and your life experiences.

For example:
Quote;
When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.

But when Desmurget stimulated a different region - the premotor cortex - he found the opposite effect. The patients moved their hands, arms or mouths without realising it. One of them flexed his left wrist, fingers and elbow and rotated his forearm, but was completely unaware of it. When his surgeons asked if he felt anything, he said no. Higher currents evoked stronger movements, but still the patients remained blissfully unaware that their limbs and lips were budging.

Quote;
Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.

Remember, I am only making suggestions; it is up to you to prove them false due to your certainty for the negative.

Which I've explained to you numerous times.....but whenever I ask you to explain your claim you dodge and weave and deflect by asking me to explain something I've already explained and which is typically ignored.

I have explained the connection many times between randomness and free will. We both agreed, through thought experiment, that free will would probably have the property of randomness.

No you haven't.

What you are saying is not an explanation. You have made no connection between randomness and free will except asserting that there 'probably' is. That is not an explanation.

I have explained this too many times. Every time I answer, you change the subject and then ask me the same questions all over again.

Where? Where is this explanation?

Do you mean something ike the one above, that ''through thought experiment, that free will would probably have the property of randomness?''

That is not an explanation. It is a vague assertion.

I have not seen even a hint of an link made between quantum randomness, decision making and will. Or how quantum randomness even allows decision making....which is specific to cells as processors, and is not random.

 

[Kharakov]

This has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.

Ho, hum, no connection has yet been made between 'random' and ''decision making' - nor 'random' and 'human behaviour' - nor 'random' and 'will' (the drive or impulse to act)...yet you persist in asserting; ''this has already been thoroughly explained to DBT.''

Not even a loose connection has been shown, not even a hint of a relationship between the decision making process, which requires information and not randomness...which is just 'noise.'

Interestingly enough, recent neural net visualizations create various discernible patterns from different batches of white noise fed to them. Inceptionism (google blog post).

Altering a single pixel might change the output radically in these entirely deterministic systems. It's chaos, rather than randomness...

 

[ryan]

There is evidence showing that QM plays a role within the consciousness. How do you know that it is not a part of the decision making process?

It is the specific structure and electrochemical activity of specialist cells, connections, transmitters, synapses, etc, that enable decision making, and not the fact that everything is made of waveicles.

It is the changes to macro activity of the brain that determines and alters it functioning as a processor, and not quantum randomness or probability, which is common to all. The difference between you and someone else is not determined by quantum composition/state, being common to all, but your inherited DNA and your life experiences.

"In this paper we present a model for a quantum mechanical trigger which regulates synaptic exocytosis, the regulator for ordered brain activity." see http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168

For example:
Quote;
When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.

But when Desmurget stimulated a different region - the premotor cortex - he found the opposite effect. The patients moved their hands, arms or mouths without realising it. One of them flexed his left wrist, fingers and elbow and rotated his forearm, but was completely unaware of it. When his surgeons asked if he felt anything, he said no. Higher currents evoked stronger movements, but still the patients remained blissfully unaware that their limbs and lips were budging.

Yes, we don't always achieve what we will, and things happen that we don't will. I am well aware of this.

Quote;
Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.

I am not sure what this has to do with denying free will.

Remember, I am only making suggestions; it is up to you to prove them false due to your certainty for the negative.

Which I've explained to you numerous times.....but whenever I ask you to explain your claim you dodge and weave and deflect by asking me to explain something I've already explained and which is typically ignored.

I have answered you every time. ***Free will shares the property randomness with QM***.

I have explained the connection many times between randomness and free will. We both agreed, through thought experiment, that free will would probably have the property of randomness.

No you haven't.

I have explained this too many times. Every time I answer, you change the subject and then ask me the same questions all over again.

Where? Where is this explanation?

Do you mean something ike the one above, that ''through thought experiment, that free will would probably have the property of randomness?''

That is not an explanation. It is a vague assertion.

Free will and QM both share the same property, but this does not mean everything that is random has free will. Draw a Venn diagram using two circles that overlap partially. QM is one circle, and free will is the other. Where they overlap is randomness.

Or how quantum randomness even allows decision making....which is specific to cells as processors, and is not random.

I don't claim to know how it works. I only know that QM influences decision making, and that is all I can know at this time.

 

[apeman]

Causation implies truth, the world can not cause my mind to have incorrect thoughts about the world if my mind is a part of the world.

Of course it can. Your, and mine, mind is part of the world and often wrong. If you are to discuss these matters then you should read up.

You make an assumption that "Your, and mine, mind is part of the world...". That you are observing the world in no way implies that you are (only) a part of it and that all your thoughts are governed by the world as it is.

If my thoughts are caused solely by the world around me, and not also by my opinions , then my thoughts would necessarily only be a truthful reflection of what I actually sensed...rather than also being based on my beliefs about the world. So, for instance, an ant only reflects the reality around it insofar as it is unable to have its own beliefs...therefore an ant doesn't have free will.