A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Please read the question carefully, ryan.

The question is: if uncontrolled elements act upon your (brains) cognitive processes, effecting non -chosen changes, and you yourself (brain) have no regulative control of what is happening at quantum scale...your thoughts and your actions being shaped and formed by non-willed quantum activity and non-willed changes to (brain) cognition, why exactly do you call this 'free will?'

In other words, why is quantum randomness even being whether stated or implied (by you) as being related to 'will' - yet alone 'free will' - when there is nothing being willed and no presence of will within quantum randomness or however it may happen to effect the cognitive process and the production of will by the agency of the brains neural networks?

It would be part of what we know as the decision making process. We can say that freedom is inherent to will because of the QM components the decision making process.

Sorry, but you haven't answered the question. You are simply repeating your beliefs.

Even if random elements are a part of the decision making process, random elements are not subject to will, not controlled by will, not freely willed, nor are random elements within an information processing activity conducive to decision making (which involves non random information processing).

You are not actually explaining or demonstrating the merit of your proposition just by stating what you believe to be true.

 

[DBT]

1, It is just as much an affirmative proposition to state that the world is a mindless creative process . You couldn't create a computer program without the will to do it could you, so why do you think it is not an affirmative proposition to state that the world is mindlessly creating the program in which we live?

Science doesn't, or shouldn't, make presumptions. The scientific method entails observation, gathering evidence and testing evidence in order to form a coherent picture of the World. To claim the World is a product of consciousness/mind is a presumption.

At least my theory stands on the foundation of two facts that we know...that thought (and the information that it considers/reacts to) definitely exists and that if we wish to construct a complex balanced system (like a computer program) then our will is an absolute requirement for its existence.

The, matter/energy/particle/waves, makeup of a brain is entangled with matter/energy/particle/waves that are 'external' to the structure and function of a brain....but the critical point here is: nobody can alter the probabilistic behaviour of matter/energy/particle/waves on quantum scale, nor on macro scale by an act of conscious will. The Universe unfolds/evolves according to its own rules and principles regardless of our wishes, desires, hopes or fears.

The best we can do is act in relation to these rules and principles in terms of modifying the conditions of our lives within the system using our material means, our bodies and their extensions, our tools, and our [unchosen] mental abilities.

3, If the world is constructed from thought alone then it is the case that there is correlation between the brain and mind, so if you damage your brain you damage your thought. There is nothing outrageous about such a statement. It's like in a computer program if you crash your simulated car into a simulated tree there is a correlation that means the car is damaged...but the simulated tree is not the cause of the damage, the underling program and therefore programmer is.

There is no indication of consciousness outside of or external to the presence and activity of a brain. All of the various attributes of consciousness are related to specific organs and structures, and if one is damaged, consciousness suffers in ways that are specific to the role and function of the organ and/or the neural structure. Without which that particular attribute of mind and consciousness cannot be formed or generated.

Now if all of this already exists, vision,hearing, smell, etc, within the quantum world, the brain is not necessary in order to experience the world, it is already being experienced by your proposed quantum mind/consciousness.

The problem being, we have abundant evidence to support brain generated mind, but no evidence for quantum mind. Entanglement is not sufficient to support quantum consciousness.

 

[ryan]

It would be part of what we know as the decision making process. We can say that freedom is inherent to will because of the QM components the decision making process.

Sorry, but you haven't answered the question. You are simply repeating your beliefs.

Even if random elements are a part of the decision making process, random elements are not subject to will, not controlled by will, not freely willed, nor are random elements within an information processing activity conducive to decision making (which involves non random information processing).

It wouldn't be QM acting on the will; it is the total of the parts including QM that is the will. We can say that the will as a whole has the freedom of whatever it could have chosen.

Using principles of functionalism, we may be able to reduce the function of will down to a very basic system of entangled particles, or maybe even single particles.

You are not actually explaining or demonstrating the merit of your proposition just by stating what you believe to be true.

I don't necessarily believe this is true. I believe it might be true. All along I have only argued against your certainty.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't necessarily believe this is true. I believe it might be true. All along I have only argued against your certainty.

You aren't involved then. Still you argue against what either you believe or not believe is DBT's certainty. I believe others might call that time wasting or maybe not.

 

[ryan]

I don't necessarily believe this is true. I believe it might be true. All along I have only argued against your certainty.

You aren't involved then. Still you argue against what either you believe or not believe is DBT's certainty. I believe others might call that time wasting or maybe not.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DBT]

I don't necessarily believe this is true. I believe it might be true. All along I have only argued against your certainty.

What kind of coherence or certainty does a random event/process such as radioactive decay enable?

How exactly does randomness help decision making, which is an information processing activity that calculates benefit to loss ratios associated with a set of possible options? The decision that is made in any given instance being determined by an interaction of information available to the system and the neural architecture of the system itself....including random glitches occurring within the system during processing activity, whether conscious or not.

So how and where exactly does randomness, quantum or otherwise, help your case for free will?

That is the question.

 

[Kharakov]

You aren't involved then. Still you argue against what either you believe or not believe is DBT's certainty. I believe others might call that time wasting or maybe not.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

At least you don't feign ignorance. That is an infuriating habit.

 

[ryan]

I don't necessarily believe this is true. I believe it might be true. All along I have only argued against your certainty.

What kind of coherence or certainty does a random event/process such as radioactive decay enable?

I was talking about the certainty you have against the possibility of free will.

How exactly does randomness help decision making, which is an information processing activity that calculates benefit to loss ratios associated with a set of possible options? The decision that is made in any given instance being determined by an interaction of information available to the system and the neural architecture of the system itself....including random glitches occurring within the system during processing activity, whether conscious or not.

I am not sure, but some of the papers about quantum models compare it to a quantum computer.

So how and where exactly does randomness, quantum or otherwise, help your case for free will?

That is the question.

I have explained this already.

Free will: "On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

A part of a more strict definition is that the agent could have chosen differently.

 

[Kharakov]

A chaotic deterministic system can have multiple balance points at which it doesn't take huge amounts of energy to alter the configuration of the system. However, this deterministic system requires some form of order, in order to remain chaotic.

 

[ryan]

A chaotic deterministic system can have multiple balance points at which it doesn't take huge amounts of energy to alter the configuration of the system. However, this deterministic system requires some form of order, in order to remain chaotic.

I honestly do not have the faintest idea what this has to do with anything that we are talking about.

 

[DBT]

What kind of coherence or certainty does a random event/process such as radioactive decay enable?

I was talking about the certainty you have against the possibility of free will.

I argue that the term 'free will' is so poorly defined that it is useless as a representation of decision making or the nature of will, nor description of human ability or behaviour. I say that the term itself is irrelevant.

I am not sure, but some of the papers about quantum models compare it to a quantum computer.

This doesn't explain anything about 'free will' or the relevance of the term.

I have explained this already.

Free will: "On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

A part of a more strict definition is that the agent could have chosen differently.

This explains exactly nothing. If quantum randomness is not a choice, and the effects of quantum randomness is not subject to control or choice, it is therefore not correct to say the agent ''could have chosen differently'' - the subject is being altered by uncontrolled and unchosen quantum events.

 

[Togo]

One plausible hypothesis - that has the advantage of not leading to an obvious contradiction - is that intent is developed as a post-hoc rationale for actions taken.

It's 'plausible' as long as you never try and build a model of human behaviour. Otherwise it's probably better to stick with the existing science. There's a reason why scientists who study behaviour don't have much time for this hypothesis.

 

[ryan]

I was talking about the certainty you have against the possibility of free will.

I argue that the term 'free will' is so poorly defined that it is useless as a representation of decision making or the nature of will, nor description of human ability or behaviour. I say that the term itself is irrelevant.

I knew this was coming, and I even think you knew that I knew it was coming. I remember thinking months ago that it would be too late for you to bring this up. The definitions I gave in my last post are quite clear even though they are a little vague. But all I had to do was fit the reality somewhere in the vagueness; that is all that I could have done.

I am not sure, but some of the papers about quantum models compare it to a quantum computer.

This doesn't explain anything about 'free will' or the relevance of the term.

You asked, "How exactly does randomness help decision making, which is an information processing activity that calculates benefit to loss ratios associated with a set of possible options?" and I said that I am not sure.

I have explained this already.

Free will: "On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire." from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

A part of a more strict definition is that the agent could have chosen differently.

This explains exactly nothing. If quantum randomness is not a choice, and the effects of quantum randomness is not subject to control or choice, it is therefore not correct to say the agent ''could have chosen differently'' - the subject is being altered by uncontrolled and unchosen quantum events.

You can say that no other parts make a choice either. QM would be part of the decision making process. It is the whole system that we define as the decision making process.

 

[apeman]

Science doesn't, or shouldn't, make presumptions. The scientific method entails observation, gathering evidence and testing evidence in order to form a coherent picture of the World. To claim the World is a product of consciousness/mind is a presumption.

At least my theory stands on the foundation of two facts that we know...that thought (and the information that it considers/reacts to) definitely exists and that if we wish to construct a complex balanced system (like a computer program) then our will is an absolute requirement for its existence.

The, matter/energy/particle/waves, makeup of a brain is entangled with matter/energy/particle/waves that are 'external' to the structure and function of a brain....but the critical point here is: nobody can alter the probabilistic behaviour of matter/energy/particle/waves on quantum scale, nor on macro scale by an act of conscious will. The Universe unfolds/evolves according to its own rules and principles regardless of our wishes, desires, hopes or fears.

The best we can do is act in relation to these rules and principles in terms of modifying the conditions of our lives within the system using our material means, our bodies and their extensions, our tools, and our [unchosen] mental abilities.

3, If the world is constructed from thought alone then it is the case that there is correlation between the brain and mind, so if you damage your brain you damage your thought. There is nothing outrageous about such a statement. It's like in a computer program if you crash your simulated car into a simulated tree there is a correlation that means the car is damaged...but the simulated tree is not the cause of the damage, the underling program and therefore programmer is.

There is no indication of consciousness outside of or external to the presence and activity of a brain. All of the various attributes of consciousness are related to specific organs and structures, and if one is damaged, consciousness suffers in ways that are specific to the role and function of the organ and/or the neural structure. Without which that particular attribute of mind and consciousness cannot be formed or generated.

Now if all of this already exists, vision,hearing, smell, etc, within the quantum world, the brain is not necessary in order to experience the world, it is already being experienced by your proposed quantum mind/consciousness.

The problem being, we have abundant evidence to support brain generated mind, but no evidence for quantum mind. Entanglement is not sufficient to support quantum consciousness.

To claim the world (outside of our minds ) is mind independent is obviously an assumption, an assumption based on the idea that because we don't control the world the world must mindlessly control itself. It is a simpler concept that the outer world is constructed from the same stuff as our inner world (but controlled by a different being) ... because it means that mindlessness doesn't create mind, mind creates mind.

All these theories that you state about the mind are just ideas, ideas that I have explained need be nothing more than correlation. How is it possible that you know without doubt that this is not a dream like event where reality is composed by the laws that govern it ?

I'm not against science, but I am against this kind of over-stepping beyond its abilities. Science can never show that this event is mind independent...and there is no need for that kind of innate bias...unless it's to back up one's own atheistic prejudice.

I quite like this Chesterton quote ...

“The centre of every man's existence is a dream. Death, disease, insanity, are merely material accidents, like a toothache or a twisted ankle. That these brutal forces always besiege and often capture the citadel does not prove that they are the citadel.”

 

[DBT]

I argue that the term 'free will' is so poorly defined that it is useless as a representation of decision making or the nature of will, nor description of human ability or behaviour. I say that the term itself is irrelevant.

I knew this was coming, and I even think you knew that I knew it was coming.

Of course it's coming. It comes every time you post something that implies that you don't know what my position is, whether it slips your mind, or is a deliberate tactic.

That is quite humorous, considering that you'd feel it necessary to complain....when you yourself have no qualms repeating your claim of quantum randomness/free will regardless of numerous posters having pointed out the problem with randomness in relation to rational decision making.

I am not sure, but some of the papers about quantum models compare it to a quantum computer.

Quantum computers haven't been constructed. But in principle a quantum computer will no more have your version of libertarian free will than the neural structures of a brain...which is an information processor, information not being random.

I have explained this already.

You can say that no other parts make a choice either. QM would be part of the decision making process. It is the whole system that we define as the decision making process.

No, you haven't explained. You haven't explained how Quantum randomness aids information processing, or how randomness enables free will...considering none of this actually subject to will, or organized by will, or effected by the 'power' of will. It does what it does according to its own rules and principles and you and I and everything else that is manifested in the physical world of wave collapsed/particles. Probably all being entangled, and if your friend Penrose is right and it is gravity that collapses wave function evolving the Universe, it is probably objective wave collapse.

 

[DBT]

To claim the world (outside of our minds ) is mind independent is obviously an assumption, an assumption based on the idea that because we don't control the world the world must mindlessly control itself.

The evidence supports the proposition that the Universe existed and evolved long before the evolution of life and mind. Depending on which interpretation of quantum theory you use, the evolution of the universe may be driven by gravity and and therefore an objective process of wave collapse and formation of stars, galaxies, planets, life on earth, brain and mind.

Of course, life on Earth and brain/mind are not independent from the matter/energy/quantum wave collapse, etc, because brain/mind/consciousness is composed of the very same 'stuff' as forms the Universe and our world and life. Considering entanglement, the particles of our brain/consciousness are entangled with the things we observe.

It is a simpler concept that the outer world is constructed from the same stuff as our inner world (but controlled by a different being) ... because it means that mindlessness doesn't create mind, mind creates mind.

The latter is an assumption that isn't supported by the evidence that supports the advent and development of a Universe long before life and mind evolved. Now you may want assume a Universal consciousness or a God or whatever and believe that this explains Existence, but that's your own private business.

 

[ryan]

I knew this was coming, and I even think you knew that I knew it was coming.

Of course it's coming. It comes every time you post something that implies that you don't know what my position is, whether it slips your mind, or is a deliberate tactic.

I meant that it is way too late for us to question the meaning/definition of free will.

That is quite humorous, considering that you'd feel it necessary to complain....when you yourself have no qualms repeating your claim of quantum randomness/free will regardless of numerous posters having pointed out the problem with randomness in relation to rational decision making.

I was on that side of the argument a long time ago. I would have to guess that most people start there.

I am not sure, but some of the papers about quantum models compare it to a quantum computer.

Quantum computers haven't been constructed. But in principle a quantum computer will no more have your version of libertarian free will than the neural structures of a brain...which is an information processor, information not being random.

I have already showed you scientific research showing the brain as possibly processing some randomness from QM.

I have explained this already.

You can say that no other parts make a choice either. QM would be part of the decision making process. It is the whole system that we define as the decision making process.

You haven't explained how Quantum randomness aids information processing,

QM gets processed by decoherence.

or how randomness enables free will...

I have answered this many times. Could you at least talk about my answer instead of going back to the same question over and over again.

... considering none of this actually subject to will, or organized by will, or effected by the 'power' of will. It does what it does according to its own rules and principles and you and I and everything else that is manifested in the physical world of wave collapsed/particles. Probably all being entangled, and if your friend Penrose is right and it is gravity that collapses wave function evolving the Universe, it is probably objective wave collapse.

The idea is that the whole of, randomness + a + b + c ... = freedom of choice. You can't leave out the other stuff and call that free will.

 

[Juma]

or how randomness enables free will...

I have answered this many times.

No you have not. You have only stated that free will looks like randomness.
Randomness is NOT free will. (It is not will at all)

 

[apeman]

The evidence supports the proposition that the Universe existed and evolved long before the evolution of life and mind. Depending on which interpretation of quantum theory you use, the evolution of the universe may be driven by gravity and and therefore an objective process of wave collapse and formation of stars, galaxies, planets, life on earth, brain and mind.

Of course, life on Earth and brain/mind are not independent from the matter/energy/quantum wave collapse, etc, because brain/mind/consciousness is composed of the very same 'stuff' as forms the Universe and our world and life. Considering entanglement, the particles of our brain/consciousness are entangled with the things we observe.

It is a simpler concept that the outer world is constructed from the same stuff as our inner world (but controlled by a different being) ... because it means that mindlessness doesn't create mind, mind creates mind.

The latter is an assumption that isn't supported by the evidence that supports the advent and development of a Universe long before life and mind evolved. Now you may want assume a Universal consciousness or a God or whatever and believe that this explains Existence, but that's your own private business.

I have no problem in accepting that the world existed before me, as I have said, I am no solipsist. But your bias leads you to believe that because the universe existed before your mind that it must be the case that the universe is not mind dependent. As I have already stated , it is clear that a simpler explanation of reality is that it exists on the foundation of a "substance" we know definitely exists (thought).

To extrapolate from the fact that your mind doesn't control reality to the idea that nothing (mindfully) controls reality is a much bigger leap of faith than my idealist theory.

As I keep on asking you , how do you know that you are not "dreaming" about your evidence that the universe has existed before mind ? How can you trust that your mind is perceiving non-mind or that it is even capable of that? You seem to have a lot of faith in your abilities.

 

[ryan]

I have answered this many times.

No you have not. You have only stated that free will looks like randomness.
Randomness is NOT free will. (It is not will at all)

Objective randomness is a property needed for free will definitions. I am not taking a single property and equating it to the entirety of free will (the decision making process). The randomness of QM also satisfies the property which is that the agent could have chosen differently.