A simple explanation of free will.

[Kharakov]

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

Short term pros of smoking outweigh the long term cons in their minds. Think like a human...

Anyway, the paper on Q decision making you linked to uses QM models to describe decision making, which does not equate to QM making the decisions. So.. ??

 

[DBT]

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

\( pros_n= \sum_{k=1}^{m} \, \, pro_k\)
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.

It's not the smoker that chooses, it is the brain of the smoker that calculates cost to benefit and selects according to its information state, reporting some of its calculation in conscious form, including the self awareness of the 'smoker'

Now, under your idea of quantum decision making, the 'smoker' is no more the agent of decision making, or the agent of control, or the agent of 'free will' (or in terms of 'the ability to have chosen otherwise under the same conditions), than under a fully determined system.

Under your conditions, quantum is the decider. Whatever quantum does, you do. You being the puppet of quantum randomness...which you cannot alter or control by an act of will, rather, it is 'quantum' that controls you.

There goes your quantum randomness free will, ryan, in the dust bin.

 

[Juma]

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.

When you make a choice it is either random or calculated. Which of these alternative would you say that intentional actions belong to?

 

[ryan]

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.

I brought the pieces together to form my rationalization. I needed the possibility of QM mechanisms within decision making; I found that they might exist. The objective randomness of QM is a logical property of free will.

There is not much else.

 

[ryan]

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

Short term pros of smoking outweigh the long term cons in their minds. Think like a human...

Maybe we are free to choose short-term over long-term pros.

Anyway, the paper on Q decision making you linked to uses QM models to describe decision making, which does not equate to QM making the decisions. So.. ??

That's right; the decision-making process is more than QM. Why does it have to only be QM?

 

[ryan]

Under your conditions, quantum is the decider. Whatever quantum does, you do. You being the puppet of quantum randomness...which you cannot alter or control by an act of will, rather, it is 'quantum' that controls you.

Why would you take QM out of the system we call "I"? I need it in there; I am assuming it's a part of "I".

 

[DBT]

Under your conditions, quantum is the decider. Whatever quantum does, you do. You being the puppet of quantum randomness...which you cannot alter or control by an act of will, rather, it is 'quantum' that controls you.

Why would you take QM out of the system we call "I"? I need it in there; I am assuming it's a part of "I".

Then you need to define the nature of 'I' - attributes, features, abilities and so on, including how your 'I' relates to Quantum, the brain and 'free' will.

 

[Kharakov]

Short term pros of smoking outweigh the long term cons in their minds. Think like a human...

Maybe we are free to choose short-term over long-term pros.

Depends on the data structure. Some brains are wired to see further along, although this is not always beneficial....

Anyway, the paper on Q decision making you linked to uses QM models to describe decision making, which does not equate to QM making the decisions. So.. ??

That's right; the decision-making process is more than QM. Why does it have to only be QM?

Ehh, the QD process uses absolutely no QM- it's a deterministic system which predicts decisions using the mathematical formalisms of QM.

So why you'd cite it for QM involvement in the decision making process is a bit unclear (well, not really, but seriously... really?).

 

[apeman]

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.

Science gathers information...but it has no evidence that that information is mindlessly created. Why do you think that science has to make the unsupported assertion that the information reaching our minds must be mindlessly created? Why can't you just accept information as raw fact, why do you have to embellish it with your non-scientific belief that the information that creates the reality around us must be mind independent? You set yourself up as a scientific thinker, then prove that you do not know the limits of science. Ho hum.

As I have already said, I am not a solipsist , I actually think that people like you exist...with your over confident faith in your abilities, abilities that the greatest philosophers have struggled to get anywhere near, that even solipsists would be jealous of...someone who knows what the fundamental basis of reality is .

If the world is actually the product of mind then I'd suggest that our will , and the way we direct it, becomes the meaning of our lives. It also means that this whole fucking universe was put here for us...which kind of makes our lives more important...and gives us good reason for developing self control, ie , free will.

If our minds are out of sink with the mind which encapsulates the universe, then that is proof that we have free will even if we are not free to do anything we like. I don't think many people think free will is the ability to do anything, I think for most people it simply means you are free to want what you like...but also have the capacity to learn to want something else.

 

[Juma]

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.



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.

Science gathers information...but it has no evidence that that information is mindlessly created. Why do you think that science has to make the unsupported assertion that the information reaching our minds must be mindlessly created? Why can't you just accept information as raw fact, why do you have to embellish it with your non-scientific belief that the information that creates the reality around us must be mind independent? You set yourself up as a scientific thinker, then prove that you do not know the limits of science. Ho hum.

As I have already said, I am not a solipsist , I actually think that people like you exist...with your over confident faith in your abilities, abilities that the greatest philosophers have struggled to get anywhere near, that even solipsists would be jealous of...someone who knows what the fundamental basis of reality is .

If the world is actually the product of mind then I'd suggest that our will , and the way we direct it, becomes the meaning of our lives. It also means that this whole fucking universe was put here for us...which kind of makes our lives more important...and gives us good reason for developing self control, ie , free will.

If our minds are out of sink with the mind which encapsulates the universe, then that is proof that we have free will even if we are not free to do anything we like. I don't think many people think free will is the ability to do anything, I think for most people it simply means you are free to want what you like...but also have the capacity to learn to want something else.

Seen any good therapist lately?

 

[ryan]

Maybe we are free to choose short-term over long-term pros.

Depends on the data structure. Some brains are wired to see further along, although this is not always beneficial....

Great video but these smokers seem to be aware of the consequences, and they know it would be better to quit.

Anyway, the paper on Q decision making you linked to uses QM models to describe decision making, which does not equate to QM making the decisions. So.. ??

That's right; the decision-making process is more than QM. Why does it have to only be QM?

Ehh, the QD process uses absolutely no QM- it's a deterministic system which predicts decisions using the mathematical formalisms of QM.

So why you'd cite it for QM involvement in the decision making process is a bit unclear (well, not really, but seriously... really?).

If it is not insinuating that QM can possibly be what is behind the math, then the title and this quote in the summary are terribly misleading, "It is possible to form a hybrid model that combines the Markov and quantum processes into a unified probabilistic dynamic system.".

 

[ryan]

Why would you take QM out of the system we call "I"? I need it in there; I am assuming it's a part of "I".

Then you need to define the nature of 'I' - attributes, features, abilities and so on, including how your 'I' relates to Quantum, the brain and 'free' will.

"I" is the mechanics and structure of the consciousness and unconsciousness.

 

[Kharakov]

If it is not insinuating that QM can possibly be what is behind the math, then the title and this quote in the summary are terribly misleading, "It is possible to form a hybrid model that combines the Markov and quantum processes into a unified probabilistic dynamic system.".

uhh.. First line of the article:

Many of the dynamical models being used in psychology today had their beginnings in theoretical physics.

Basically, QD models are pretty good when applied to chaotic systems which are too complicated to predict with other methods. The fact that you can use QD models to predict deterministic systems with multiple variables doesn't mean that the systems aren't deterministic.

 

[ryan]

uhh.. First line of the article:

Many of the dynamical models being used in psychology today had their beginnings in theoretical physics.

You have got to be kidding me. How the hell are you interpreting this quote to mean that the decision-making must be a determinate process?

Basically, QD models are pretty good when applied to chaotic systems which are too complicated to predict with other methods. The fact that you can use QD models to predict deterministic systems with multiple variables doesn't mean that the systems aren't deterministic.

Well it certainly does not seem to reinforce that only classical mechanics can be involved in the decision-making process. My argument has been about the possibility of QM processes in decision making.

If this paper is not implying that QM processes are possible, then can you please find a better quote to the contrary.

 

[Kharakov]

You have got to be kidding me. How the hell are you interpreting this quote to mean that the decision-making must be a determinate process?

That quote? No. The whole paper. That's the first line of it, and describes how they used math from one discipline to model behaviors in another discipline. We could use QD to predict internet traffic flow. It doesn't mean that there aren't various causal things associated with it.

Basically, QD models are pretty good when applied to chaotic systems which are too complicated to predict with other methods. The fact that you can use QD models to predict deterministic systems with multiple variables doesn't mean that the systems aren't deterministic.

Well it certainly does not seem to reinforce that only classical mechanics can be involved in the decision-making process. My argument has been about the possibility of QM processes in decision making.

If this paper is not implying that QM processes are possible, then can you please find a better quote to the contrary.

You could just read the first couple of paragraphs until you understand that they are talking about using mathematical models, and aren't talking about actual QM processes.....

Read the abstract, from the top of the paper, one more time. It's about using models. Has nothing to do with particles, although the models they used were developed for particles.

Starting at the paragraph at the bottom left corner of page 235, read a few paragraphs. You might get why they claimed that the model could be used.


Here is a nice little, easy to understand write up on Quantum Chaos from the American Mathematical Society:
http://www.ams.org/samplings/math-history/prime-chaos.pdf

 

[DBT]

Then you need to define the nature of 'I' - attributes, features, abilities and so on, including how your 'I' relates to Quantum, the brain and 'free' will.

"I" is the mechanics and structure of the consciousness and unconsciousness.

That's too vague, ryan. You need more detail, much more detail....and don't overlook the last part of the question: attributes, features, abilities and so on, including how your 'I' relates to Quantum, the brain and 'free' will.

 

[DBT]

Quote Originally Posted by ryan
You have got to be kidding me. How the hell are you interpreting this quote to mean that the decision-making must be a determinate process?

Of course decision making is deterministic. Logically, it has to be.

Presented with given a given set of options (not all available options are available to everyone), the decision that is made by the subject/brain is determined by the criteria, which is governed by memory/past experience, and the state of the processor (brain) at the time that the selection is made.

Quantum randomness doesn't form your addiction to chocolate or browsing the internet.....

 

[ryan]

Okay, so the only evidence that I can find is the discovery of QM effects from microtubules, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm .

DBT and Kharakov, I doubt that you both know for sure that this discovery is not true.

Bail on your unjustified certainties; they are only theories of science.

 

[DBT]

Okay, so the only evidence that I can find is the discovery of QM effects from microtubules, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm .

DBT and Kharakov, I doubt that you both know for sure that this discovery is not true.

Bail on your unjustified certainties; they are only theories of science.

So, do you think that you can use this highly speculative hypothesis to describe quantum decision making and in relation to your version of free will?

How?

Can you explain?

This is not to say that micro-tubules do not play a role in brain structure and function, just not in a way that supports your position.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so the only evidence that I can find is the discovery of QM effects from microtubules, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm .

DBT and Kharakov, I doubt that you both know for sure that this discovery is not true.

Bail on your unjustified certainties; they are only theories of science.

So, do you think that you can use this highly speculative hypothesis to describe quantum decision making and in relation to your version of free will?

How?

Can you explain?

This is not to say that micro-tubules do not play a role in brain structure and function, just not in a way that supports your position.

I have explained it many times, what's one more.

Free will would objectively appear to have some randomness. These QM processes in the brain would produce some objective randomness. Most importantly, this fits common definitions of free will, "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God" (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will ).