A simple explanation of free will.

[fromderinside]

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.

Your brush off runs into the problem that sense of agency persists whether one is predicting/deciding or explaining/rationalizing. the only BS I say in this tread of a thread by bilby is that he was responding to ryan's in concrete, better, maybe possibly position that quantum could may possibly, possibly, lie at the base of it all. Rationalizing (ryan's specialty it seems) as an evolutionary social communication hierarchy seems to work pretty well explaining why we do what we do, are organized socially the way were are, and developed into societies that are so top down organized. With deciders leading the way we'd expect more anarchy, less cooperation, and very few religious notions.

 

[Juma]

Objective randomness is a property needed for free will
definitions.

No it is not. If action is random then acting on intention (or desire) is impossible.

I am not taking a single property and equating it to the entirety of free will (the decision making process).

Yes you are! What other QM properties are there to "explain" LFW?

The randomness of QM also satisfies the property which is that the agent could have chosen differently.

Why? A QM evenet could not have been different: what have happened belongs to the past and cannot be different.

 

[ryan]

No it is not. If action is random then acting on intention (or desire) is impossible.

I said objective randomness, not subjective randomness.

I am not taking a single property and equating it to the entirety of free will (the decision making process).

Yes you are! What other QM properties are there to "explain" LFW?

The decision making process is more than just some random inputs from QM. Objective randomness is just a property of the decision making process.

The randomness of QM also satisfies the property which is that the agent could have chosen differently.

Why? A QM evenet could not have been different: what have happened belongs to the past and cannot be different.

I agree with you. But you negated the past tense "could" with the present tense of "cannot".

 

[DBT]

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.

No it's not...the fundamental rules and principles of physics describe the features and attributes of the natural world, its objects and their relationships. Science gathers and tests evidence/information in order to form a better understanding of the World and how it works. You are going too far, way beyond what the evidence even suggests.

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.

And I keep telling you that the evidence paints a different picture to that of your solipsism. And even if the World happens to be a dream that I am having, the dream is not something I can control or alter, simply by willing a change, instead it takes physical actions performed according to the rules of physics. I cannot break the rules or alter the World by an act of will (without a physical motor action), so if the World is a dream that I am having, it is the dream that has control over me....which does not bode well for the ideology of 'free' will. Rational will is another matter, as is irrational will.

 

[DBT]

The decision making process is more than just some random inputs from QM. Objective randomness is just a property of the decision making process.

That claim is meaningless without a detailed description of how randomness aids information processing. And please don't bring up vibrating nano tubules again...which do not actually process information or make decisions, this being the role of neural activity/connections/memory function, etc, etc.

 

[ryan]

The decision making process is more than just some random inputs from QM. Objective randomness is just a property of the decision making process.

That claim is meaningless without a detailed description of how randomness aids information processing. And please don't bring up vibrating nano tubules again...which do not actually process information or make decisions, this being the role of neural activity/connections/memory function, etc, etc.

http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/QD.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653911

 

[DBT]

That claim is meaningless without a detailed description of how randomness aids information processing. And please don't bring up vibrating nano tubules again...which do not actually process information or make decisions, this being the role of neural activity/connections/memory function, etc, etc.

http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/QD.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653911

That's not very helpful, I don't want to click on links in order to trawl for particulars that you believe support your claim, but I don't see or even recognize as being evidence that supports your claim.

You need to give a formal argument and include the evidence that you believe supports your case, quotes, specific experiments, etc, not just links.

You need to do a bit of work.

 

[Juma]

I said objective randomness, not subjective randomness.

Which is of no consequence. Dont avoid the question.Please answer.

Objective randomness is just a property of the decision making process.

No it is not. To actuate an intention it cannot be objective random.

I agree with you. But you negated the past tense "could" with the present tense of "cannot".

Again there is no logical difference dhich tense is used. QM will not give you the possibility of something to have happened differently.

You argument is logically bankrupt.

1) Intention require causality. Thus random action is no solution.
2) you can never "have acted differently" because there is always a reason for your actions, if not then it isnt intentional anyway (see 1 about intention)

 

[ryan]

http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/QD.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653911

That's not very helpful, I don't want to click on links in order to trawl for particulars that you believe support your claim, but I don't see or even recognize as being evidence that supports your claim.

You need to give a formal argument and include the evidence that you believe supports your case, quotes, specific experiments, etc, not just links.

You need to do a bit of work.

The title is "Quantum dynamics of human decision-making". If this isn't enough to make you question your certainty, then there is absolutely nothing that I can imagine that would.

 

[ryan]

Which is of no consequence. Dont avoid the question.Please answer.

You didn't ask a question. You just set up a straw man in a statement.

Objective randomness is just a property of the decision making process.

No it is not. To actuate an intention it cannot be objective random.

If my choices are free to choose from multiple options, how would anyone predict which option I would choose? This would appear random.

I agree with you. But you negated the past tense "could" with the present tense of "cannot".

Again there is no logical difference dhich tense is used. QM will not give you the possibility of something to have happened differently.

You argument is logically bankrupt.

1) Intention require causality. Thus random action is no solution.
2) you can never "have acted differently" because there is always a reason for your actions, if not then it isnt intentional anyway (see 1 about intention)

When options are presented, we have to make a choice. Whether or not this choice has freedom is part of what this argument is about.

 

[Kharakov]

If my choices are free to choose from multiple options, how would anyone predict which option I would choose? This would appear random.

Say that you have a couple of options to choose from.

One of the options is a belief that is unsupported by logic and experience (the existence of free will).
One of the options is a belief that is supported by experience and logic (the non-existence of free will).

I'm pretty sure anyone here can predict which one you will choose.

 

[ryan]

If my choices are free to choose from multiple options, how would anyone predict which option I would choose? This would appear random.

Say that you have a couple of options to choose from.

One of the options is a belief that is unsupported by logic and experience (the existence of free will).
One of the options is a belief that is supported by experience and logic (the non-existence of free will).

I'm pretty sure anyone here can predict which one you will choose.

I have never in this thread been so curious as I was when I read the first sentence of your post - but only disappointment ensued. And that's okay; they can't all be winners.

 

[Kharakov]

The river banks, the rudder clears, a toothless whisper of shallow fears.

Yes you have will, but many have will.

 

[ryan]

The river banks, the rudder clears, a toothless whisper of shallow fears.

Yes you have will, but many have will.

Why didn't you unleash this killer argument before?

 

[Kharakov]

The river banks, the rudder clears, a toothless whisper of shallow fears.

Yes you have will, but many have will.

Why didn't you unleash this killer argument before?

You weren't ready for it, grasshopper.

 

[ryan]

Why didn't you unleash this killer argument before?

You weren't ready for it, grasshopper.

Just in case your arguments from romanticism are not perfectly sound, would you be able to explain in scientific terms why free will is impossible?

 

[Kharakov]

You weren't ready for it, grasshopper.

Just in case your arguments from romanticism are not perfectly sound, would you be able to explain in scientific terms why free will is impossible?

\( \omega_n= \vec{desire}_n \, \, \times \, \, (pros_n - cons_n) \)

\( pros_n= \sum_{k=1}^{m} \, \, pro_k\)
with m being the number of pros. Same for cons.

Sort function for \(\omega_n\) selects greatest \(\omega_n\) to act towards.

Start at \(\omega_n\), compare to \(\omega_{n-1}\):

if \(\omega_n>\omega_{n-1}\), \(\omega_{n-1}=\omega_n\).

if \(\omega_{n-1}>\omega_{n-2}\), \(\omega_{n-2}=\omega_{n-1}\)....
....
if \(\omega_3>\omega_{2}\), \(\omega_{2}=\omega_3\).

if \(\omega_2>\omega_{1}\), \(\omega_{1}=\omega_2\).

At the end of the sort function, \(\omega_1\) has the greatest magnitude, so you will do whatever it is. It's a bit more complicated than that- there are lots of interplaying wills, and during the calculation, certain wills go up and down as focus plays on different variables (pros, cons, and desire), but basically the above set of equations could be a good simplified way of looking at will.

But you know what, you can also just feel free to try what is around you, if you desire to do that. There are lots of pros to interacting with your environment in a positive joyful manner, no matter what the situation. So you can sort of tie the will to be positive and joyful to all of your willed actions, once you figure out what you can do without causing harm to yourself and others.

 

[ryan]

Just in case your arguments from romanticism are not perfectly sound, would you be able to explain in scientific terms why free will is impossible?

\( \omega_n= \vec{desire}_n \, \, \times \, \, (pros_n - cons_n) \)

\( pros_n= \sum_{k=1}^{m} \, \, pro_k\)
with m being the number of pros. Same for cons.

Sort function for \(\omega_n\) selects greatest \(\omega_n\) to act towards.

Start at \(\omega_n\), compare to \(\omega_{n-1}\):

if \(\omega_n>\omega_{n-1}\), \(\omega_{n-1}=\omega_n\).

if \(\omega_{n-1}>\omega_{n-2}\), \(\omega_{n-2}=\omega_{n-1}\)....
....
if \(\omega_3>\omega_{2}\), \(\omega_{2}=\omega_3\).

if \(\omega_2>\omega_{1}\), \(\omega_{1}=\omega_2\).

At the end of the sort function, \(\omega_1\) has the greatest magnitude, so you will do whatever it is. It's a bit more complicated than that- there are lots of interplaying wills, and during the calculation, certain wills go up and down as focus plays on different variables (pros, cons, and desire), but basically the above set of equations could be a good simplified way of looking at will.

But you know what, you can also just feel free to try what is around you, if you desire to do that. There are lots of pros to interacting with your environment in a positive joyful manner, no matter what the situation. So you can sort of tie the will to be positive and joyful to all of your willed actions, once you figure out what you can do without causing harm to yourself and others.

Some smokers I know know that the cons outweigh the pros, but they choose to do it anyway.

 

[ryan]

... At the end of the sort function, \(\omega_1\) has the greatest magnitude, so you will do whatever it is. It's a bit more complicated than that

A "bit" more complicated? Please scroll through the math used for decision making here, http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/QD.pdf .

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[DBT]

That's not very helpful, I don't want to click on links in order to trawl for particulars that you believe support your claim, but I don't see or even recognize as being evidence that supports your claim.

You need to give a formal argument and include the evidence that you believe supports your case, quotes, specific experiments, etc, not just links.

You need to do a bit of work.

The title is "Quantum dynamics of human decision-making". If this isn't enough to make you question your certainty, then there is absolutely nothing that I can imagine that would.

It doesn't matter what the title is, you are evading the issue.

The issue being: it is you who made the claim that free will is related to quantum randomness, so it is you who should provide an argument, with supporting evidence, that shows that your claim has merit...and not just post a link to something that you believe supports your claim. It may or may not, but you need to show why it does. You can quote the relevant parts from your links and describe why it supports your ideas.