A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

What you say makes no sense. It doesn't matter how it appear to an observer, the observer has no access to the relevant information, the observer does know your inner workings, only superficial appearances. If you, yourself have no regulative control of your makeup, Quantum states, particle position and consequently what happens to you, you are not free. You are a puppet to underlying forces over which you have no regulative control.

It's just an interpretation that fits with observation and the feeling of will. What kind of an infinitely strange coincidence would it be that the universe so happens to give a feeling of free will and a behavior of matter that when uninhibited coincides with the intention. It would be like saying the relationship between gravity and matter might be a coincidence. Sure it is possible that gravity and matter just so happen to exist in such a way that makes them appear to be causally connected in some way; similarly, it is also possible that the feeling of intention is a ridiculous coincidence to the expected observations.

I know that I don't have proof, but I also know that I have not come across any reason why limited free will can't or even shouldn't exist.

What a ridiculus brainfart!

 

[ryan]

It's just an interpretation that fits with observation and the feeling of will. What kind of an infinitely strange coincidence would it be that the universe so happens to give a feeling of free will and a behavior of matter that when uninhibited coincides with the intention. It would be like saying the relationship between gravity and matter might be a coincidence. Sure it is possible that gravity and matter just so happen to exist in such a way that makes them appear to be causally connected in some way; similarly, it is also possible that the feeling of intention is a ridiculous coincidence to the expected observations.

I know that I don't have proof, but I also know that I have not come across any reason why limited free will can't or even shouldn't exist.

What a ridiculus brainfart!

Your trolling skills are not what they used to be - you are better than this. At least before you would act like you were interested first and then reel people in. I think you should go practice them up on some other websites or ask Kharakov how he does it.

 

[Kharakov]

Of course it is. You're talking about it. There is no way to avoid QM in a conversation that involves QM.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe fromderinside can translate. But, then, I will need you to translate what fromderinside says.

It's simple. If you talk about QM, it has had an influence upon you.

 

[ryan]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe fromderinside can translate. But, then, I will need you to translate what fromderinside says.

It's simple. If you talk about QM, it has had an influence upon you.

If I talk about the Boogie Man, does that mean it had an influence on me too? And what does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[Kharakov]

It's simple. If you talk about QM, it has had an influence upon you.

If I talk about the Boogie Man, does that mean it had an influence on me too?

The idea of the Boogie Man has had a direct influence upon your response.

And what does this have to do with the discussion?

The detection of QM phenomena has magnified the impact of those phenomena to classical levels, which is why they are present in this discussion about QM phenomena and their impact upon will.

Of course QM phenomena impact will. I tend to think that the combined QM phenomena is best expressed classically.

 

[Juma]

What a ridiculus brainfart!

Your trolling skills are not what they used to be - you are better than this. At least before you would act like you were interested first and then reel people in. I think you should go practice them up on some other websites or ask Kharakov how he does it.

I'm not trolling, I am totally sincere. You have reached an all time low: your post is totally vacous, there is nothing in it that hasnt been torn to shreds before. Something had to be true since you feels like it? And you compare this to the reason why gravitation is true? No, ryan. This beyond reproaching. It has definitely earned the epitet "not even wrong".

 

[ryan]

Your trolling skills are not what they used to be - you are better than this. At least before you would act like you were interested first and then reel people in. I think you should go practice them up on some other websites or ask Kharakov how he does it.

I'm not trolling, I am totally sincere. You have reached an all time low: your post is totally vacous, there is nothing in it that hasnt been torn to shreds before. Something had to be true since you feels like it? And you compare this to the reason why gravitation is true? No, ryan. This beyond reproaching. It has definitely earned the epitet "not even wrong".

A very long and incredibly successful experiment is how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention.

 

[ryan]

If I talk about the Boogie Man, does that mean it had an influence on me too?

The idea of the Boogie Man has had a direct influence upon your response.

And what does this have to do with the discussion?

The detection of QM phenomena has magnified the impact of those phenomena to classical levels, which is why they are present in this discussion about QM phenomena and their impact upon will.

Of course QM phenomena impact will. I tend to think that the combined QM phenomena is best expressed classically.

Yeah well that doesn't agree with the math of quantum cognition.

Something could be a function of only QM like the life or death of Schrodinger's cat. We don't know enough about the brain to rule out QM; that is all I have been arguing to DBT about.

 

[DBT]

The idea of the Boogie Man has had a direct influence upon your response.

And what does this have to do with the discussion?

The detection of QM phenomena has magnified the impact of those phenomena to classical levels, which is why they are present in this discussion about QM phenomena and their impact upon will.

Of course QM phenomena impact will. I tend to think that the combined QM phenomena is best expressed classically.

Yeah well that doesn't agree with the math of quantum cognition.

Something could be a function of only QM like the life or death of Schrodinger's cat. We don't know enough about the brain to rule out QM; that is all I have been arguing to DBT about.

No doubt that QM plays a part in the underlying scaffolding of biological structures and processes and including the ability to function, but on the scale cell structure and the evolved purpose of cells, Quantum theory breaks down.

Nor is there evidence that Quantum is the generator of conscious experience, thought, decision making and so on. Which is defined and described by large scale structures and classical physics. And what is 'free will' without regulative control of physical states, whether QM or cellular....

 

[DBT]

If you can't explain why this is definitely not a dream like (of the mind) event, then you must accept that your more complex explanation of reality stands on the foundation of unprovable belief. Why should we believe the more complex explanation if it offers us less than the simpler explanation...a simpler explanation that most people experience every time that they know that they are making a choice?

Makes no difference to the issue of free will, or regulative control of physical laws and conditions, when in fact you cannot control the conditions and events during the course of 'your' dream...when it is the dream that has control of you.

 

[ryan]

The idea of the Boogie Man has had a direct influence upon your response.

And what does this have to do with the discussion?

The detection of QM phenomena has magnified the impact of those phenomena to classical levels, which is why they are present in this discussion about QM phenomena and their impact upon will.

Of course QM phenomena impact will. I tend to think that the combined QM phenomena is best expressed classically.

Yeah well that doesn't agree with the math of quantum cognition.

Something could be a function of only QM like the life or death of Schrodinger's cat. We don't know enough about the brain to rule out QM; that is all I have been arguing to DBT about.

No doubt that QM plays a part in the underlying scaffolding of biological structures and processes and including the ability to function, but on the scale cell structure and the evolved purpose of cells, Quantum theory breaks down.

Nor is there evidence that Quantum is the generator of conscious experience, thought, decision making and so on.

There are successful models using mathematics from QM that explain many cognitive processes including decision making.

Which is defined and described by large scale structures and classical physics.

This is far from true.

And what is 'free will' without regulative control of physical states, whether QM or cellular....

Being the quantum states may be controlling the quantum states.

 

[DBT]

There are successful models using mathematics from QM that explain many cognitive processes including decision making.

So...do you have an example - using mathematics from QM - to explain human or animal decision making?

Let's have a look at it.

This is far from true.

That's no argument. Try to describe evolution or animal behaviour in terms of QM, for example.

Being the quantum states may be controlling the quantum states.

Oh, for heavens sake...where do you fit into this picture? Where and how does your so called free will come into play? Something that has no apparent control of QM or classical physics!

 

[Juma]

I'm not trolling, I am totally sincere. You have reached an all time low: your post is totally vacous, there is nothing in it that hasnt been torn to shreds before. Something had to be true since you feels like it? And you compare this to the reason why gravitation is true? No, ryan. This beyond reproaching. It has definitely earned the epitet "not even wrong".

A very long and incredibly successful experiment is how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention.

1) it is not an experiment (you should know the requiremnts for a proper set up experiment by know)
2) "how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention" shows not that we have any LFW. On the contrary, it shows rational agents doing what they are suspected to do.

 

[DBT]

Just as a matter of interest, here's a poll taken by Physicists, Mathematicians, etc, on QM interpretations.


''In cases of collegial disagreement, it’s often fun to quantify the extent of opinion by gathering a collection of experts and taking a poll. Inevitably some killjoy will loudly grumble that “scientific questions aren’t decided by voting!”, but that misses the point. A poll of scientists isn’t meant to decide questions, it’s meant to collect data — mapping out the territory of opinion among people who have spent time and effort thinking carefully about the relevant questions.''

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics:

 

[Juma]

The poll included physicists, mathematicians and philosophers. I would like to see the distributions on these groups...

 

[DBT]

The poll included physicists, mathematicians and philosophers. I would like to see the distributions on these groups...

Yeah, that's a problem. Presumably the Mathematicians and Philosophers they polled are also familiar with Quantum theory.

 

[ryan]

So...do you have an example - using mathematics from QM - to explain human or animal decision making?

Let's have a look at it.

Under the "Quantum Probability Introductory Chapter" of http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/quantum/Quantum Cognition Notes.htm they have,

"This chapter has two related purposes: to generate interest in a
new and fascinating approach to understanding behavioral measures
based on quantum probability principles, and to introduce
and provide a tutorial of the basic ideas in a manner that is interesting
and easy for social and behavioral scientists to understand." .

The rest goes into more detail.

This is far from true.

That's no argument. Try to describe evolution or animal behaviour in terms of QM, for example.

Why do you have to keep taking this idea to the extreme. Obviously I know that much of what we are and how we behave is limited to classical mechanics.

Being the quantum states may be controlling the quantum states.

Oh, for heavens sake...where do you fit into this picture? Where and how does your so called free will come into play? Something that has no apparent control of QM or classical physics!

The agent with free will behaves as QM does.

 

[ryan]

A very long and incredibly successful experiment is how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention.

1) it is not an experiment (you should know the requiremnts for a proper set up experiment by know)
2) "how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention" shows not that we have any LFW. On the contrary, it shows rational agents doing what they are suspected to do.

I know for myself that every time I intended something to happen, barring intervention, it happened. Every textbook I have ever read about gravity says that gravity and matter are related in a similarly causal way. That's all I meant.

 

[ryan]

The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics

To be fair, this is a philosophical concern that arises from physics. This is the edge of the scientific understanding of fundamental physics, so naturally philosophy will be what is beyond the QM models.

 

[Juma]

1) it is not an experiment (you should know the requiremnts for a proper set up experiment by know)
2) "how human behaviors respond to intentions, baring outside intervention" shows not that we have any LFW. On the contrary, it shows rational agents doing what they are suspected to do.

I know for myself that every time I intended something to happen, barring intervention, it happened. Every textbook I have ever read about gravity says that gravity and matter are related in a similarly causal way. That's all I meant.

And that is total baloney.