A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Perhaps, I don't know. Radioactive decay does appear to be accepted as being a stochastic, or a random process.

I don't equate random with undetermined, more with unpredictable (or chaotic). Could be wrong, of course.

There is the 'pilot wave, particle interaction' interpretation, which is on the fringe, but claimed to be having a resurgence. I'm not sure exactly how much merit it has, but seems reasonable on the surface.

Quote;
''This idea that nature is inherently probabilistic — that particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed — is directly implied by the standard equations of quantum mechanics. But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.''

''The experiments involve an oil droplet that bounces along the surface of a liquid. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from past bounces affect its course. The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

''Particles at the quantum scale seem to do things that human-scale objects do not do. They can tunnel through barriers, spontaneously arise or annihilate, and occupy discrete energy levels. This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features.''

''To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics.''

 

[ryan]

More likely a part of the physical makeup of a brain, but not responsible for sifting information. Random vibrations are not information filters that select options that are based on a set of given criteria.

Random vibrations do not make decisions.

And neurons don't make decisions either; the whole makes decisions.

Free will includes the choice to be irrational.

Oh, right...now I see. An Engineer working on a new space shuttle design makes an error in a critical calculation because his random microtubule vibrations decided to alter the process on the basis of 'free will' - thus choosing an incorrect and irrational calculation which consequently causes loss of life because a failure to launch correctly.

There are so many reasons why this isn't a problem for my argument. Please just use your imagination on this one. I am too tired.

 

[Kharakov]

Bohmian mechanics.

And still, break things up into the smallest units of motion and energy, but toss out that there could be qualia and unique consciousness at that level?

 

[ryan]

... including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured. ...

But what's that all about?

 

[bilby]

Bohmian mechanics.

And still, break things up into the smallest units of motion and energy, but toss out that there could be qualia and unique consciousness at that level?

Bohemian mechanics. http://czechautobody.com/collision-repair/

 

[DBT]

And neurons don't make decisions either; the whole makes decisions.

You have said that it is the random elements within the system that can change decisions. That it is specifically the element of randomness (micro tubule vibrations, etc) within the system that is the source of free will....and not necessarily the system as a whole.

There are so many reasons why this isn't a problem for my argument. Please just use your imagination on this one. I am too tired.

It is not only a problem for your argument, it is a fatal flaw...if you had an argument. What you have is an assertion, not an argument. So it is a fatal flaw in your assertion; that random vibrations within the system alter decisions which makes this an example of free will...regardless of the fact that the change in decision making is neither chosen or willed.

- - - Updated - - -

... including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured. ...

But what's that all about?

Superposition.

 

[ryan]

You have said that it is the random elements within the system that can change decisions.

No, that is not what I said!!!! Since the microtubules make up the decision-making process they are not changing the decision-making process.

That it is specifically the element of randomness (micro tubule vibrations, etc) within the system that is the source of free will....and not necessarily the system as a whole.

Noooo, the randomness is a property that when combined with everything else becomes free will.

There are so many reasons why this isn't a problem for my argument. Please just use your imagination on this one. I am too tired.

... change in decision making is neither chosen or willed.

I agree with you, but the randomness of the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

 

[DBT]

No, that is not what I said!!!! Since the microtubules make up the decision-making process they are not changing the decision-making process.

But decision making, sifting information, is specifically the role of neurons and their networks...and not microtubules, which are a far smaller scale and are not information processors. So, ryan, you did indeed say what I said whether you accept it or not.

Noooo, the randomness is a property that when combined with everything else becomes free will.

Well, there you go, you say 'everything else' when it is the 'everything else' - the neuronal connections, etc - that are evolved as the sifters of information, the agents of decision making, and not 'randomness'

You say 'combined with everything else' but you can't say how ramdomeness aids information sifting for the benefit of the organism, because randomness does not select for options that meet the needs of the organism.

If the brain of a moth has randomly vibrating micotubules as a part of the structure of its brain, the difference between the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a moth is vastly different from the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a human despite that both have brain structures that have microtubules as a part of their structure.

I agree with you, but the randomness of the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

No, you merely assert that this is a part of the decision-making process without being able to explain the mechanisms, information exchange between cells, transmitters, synapses, etc, or account for the flaws in logic of randomness being beneficial to the decision making process of a brain.

 

[ryan]

But decision making, sifting information, is specifically the role of neurons and their networks...and not microtubules, which are a far smaller scale and are not information processors. So, ryan, you did indeed say what I said whether you accept it or not.

Noooo, the randomness is a property that when combined with everything else becomes free will.

Well, there you go, you say 'everything else' when it is the 'everything else' - the neuronal connections, etc - that are evolved as the sifters of information, the agents of decision making, and not 'randomness'

You say 'combined with everything else' but you can't say how ramdomeness aids information sifting for the benefit of the organism, because randomness does not select for options that meet the needs of the organism.

If the brain of a moth has randomly vibrating micotubules as a part of the structure of its brain, the difference between the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a moth is vastly different from the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a human despite that both have brain structures that have microtubules as a part of their structure.

I agree with you, but the randomness of the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

No, you merely assert that this is a part of the decision-making process without being able to explain the mechanisms, information exchange between cells, transmitters, synapses, etc, or account for the flaws in logic of randomness being beneficial to the decision making process of a brain.

How much of a role does QM play in the decision-making process remains to be seen. The idea that QM may play a role is enough for me to feel confident against the certainty that free will does not exist.

Although, I will say that I learnt a lot from our discussions and found them to be very interesting.

I don't really have anything left to say.

 

[DBT]

But decision making, sifting information, is specifically the role of neurons and their networks...and not microtubules, which are a far smaller scale and are not information processors. So, ryan, you did indeed say what I said whether you accept it or not.


Well, there you go, you say 'everything else' when it is the 'everything else' - the neuronal connections, etc - that are evolved as the sifters of information, the agents of decision making, and not 'randomness'

You say 'combined with everything else' but you can't say how ramdomeness aids information sifting for the benefit of the organism, because randomness does not select for options that meet the needs of the organism.

If the brain of a moth has randomly vibrating micotubules as a part of the structure of its brain, the difference between the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a moth is vastly different from the needs and consciousness and behaviour of a human despite that both have brain structures that have microtubules as a part of their structure.

I agree with you, but the randomness of the microtubules are a part of the decision-making process.

No, you merely assert that this is a part of the decision-making process without being able to explain the mechanisms, information exchange between cells, transmitters, synapses, etc, or account for the flaws in logic of randomness being beneficial to the decision making process of a brain.

How much of a role does QM play in the decision-making process remains to be seen. The idea that QM may play a role is enough for me to feel confident against the certainty that free will does not exist.

Although, I will say that I learnt a lot from our discussions and found them to be very interesting.

I don't really have anything left to say.

QM is the scaffolding of the Universe.

Quantum wave/particles alone do not make decisions, that is governed by brain architecture, DNA, etc..

The idea that QM may play a role is enough for me to feel confident against the certainty that free will does not exist.

The term 'free will' is very poorly defined.

The term 'free will' cannot be applied to something that has no will; quantum probability or random vibrating micro tubule structures within the structure of a brain.

Quantum wave/particles/micro tubule vibrations do not decide whether or not to get married and have children.

Quantum wave/particles /micro tubule vibrations do not work for a living, drive cars, do the shopping, read books, play games or watch television.

Quantum wave/particles/micro tubule vibrations do not form preferences between chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

All of these things and more are developed through a progression of macro scale events, evolution and experience, instinct and memory.....

 

[ryan]

Quantum wave/particles alone do not make decisions, that is governed by brain architecture, DNA, etc..

I don't understand why you keep using descriptions like "alone" after I have repeatedly told you it wasn't what I was saying. It's too frustrating for me to continue this discussion. And really, I said everything that I wanted to say.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't understand why you keep using descriptions like "alone" after I have repeatedly told you it wasn't what I was saying. It's too frustrating for me to continue this discussion. And really, I said everything that I wanted to say.

Let's see. You retreat to something not measurable yet - 'yet' is important for those who are optimistic about holding a reductionist position - some quantum whatever to fixate upon. Then you get upset when we try to bring you back to a discussion that isn't silly. To wit: "consciousness resides in something other than matter or in some other level of matter" something not disposed to do more than come into existence, disappear from existence, attach, separate, or, demonstrate quantum determination. Apparently what you've been trying to say is nothing other than your belief to be true. Then you want us to prove your imaginary conjecture untrue.

Apparently even you don't believe in what you are saying. So, yes, there should be nothing more for you to say since that is what you've already said.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand why you keep using descriptions like "alone" after I have repeatedly told you it wasn't what I was saying. It's too frustrating for me to continue this discussion. And really, I said everything that I wanted to say.

Let's see. You retreat to something not measurable yet - 'yet' is important for those who are optimistic about holding a reductionist position - some quantum whatever to fixate upon. Then you get upset when we try to bring you back to a discussion that isn't silly. To wit: "consciousness resides in something other than matter or in some other level of matter" something not disposed to do more than come into existence, disappear from existence, attach, separate, or, demonstrate quantum determination. Apparently what you've been trying to say is nothing other than your belief to be true. Then you want us to prove your imaginary conjecture untrue.

Apparently even you don't believe in what you are saying. So, yes, there should be nothing more for you to say since that is what you've already said.

My argument for free will has nothing to do with mind/consciousness/duality. Where did you get that from?

I presented my assumptions, took existing definitions and lined them up in a logically consistent way. Or at least I have yet to read any reason why my assertion fails.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's see. You retreat to something not measurable yet - 'yet' is important for those who are optimistic about holding a reductionist position - some quantum whatever to fixate upon. Then you get upset when we try to bring you back to a discussion that isn't silly. To wit: "consciousness resides in something other than matter or in some other level of matter" something not disposed to do more than come into existence, disappear from existence, attach, separate, or, demonstrate quantum determination. Apparently what you've been trying to say is nothing other than your belief to be true. Then you want us to prove your imaginary conjecture untrue.

Apparently even you don't believe in what you are saying. So, yes, there should be nothing more for you to say since that is what you've already said.

My argument for free will has nothing to do with mind/consciousness/duality. Where did you get that from?

I presented my assumptions, took existing definitions and lined them up in a logically consistent way. Or at least I have yet to read any reason why my assertion fails.

Not based on substance? Not an assertion? Self evidence requires believably at least. You got everything right up to the part about "Just the facts, ma'm" Done, done done, done.

See. I can do it a bunch of different ways.

 

[ryan]

My argument for free will has nothing to do with mind/consciousness/duality. Where did you get that from?

I presented my assumptions, took existing definitions and lined them up in a logically consistent way. Or at least I have yet to read any reason why my assertion fails.

Not based on substance? Not an assertion? Self evidence requires believably at least. You got everything right up to the part about "Just the facts, ma'm" Done, done done, done.

See. I can do it a bunch of different ways.

I don't understand what you are saying.

It's hard enough to decipher what people say in full sentences over this very limited medium of communication, never mind incomplete sentences.

 

[DBT]

Quantum wave/particles alone do not make decisions, that is governed by brain architecture, DNA, etc..

I don't understand why you keep using descriptions like "alone" after I have repeatedly told you it wasn't what I was saying. It's too frustrating for me to continue this discussion. And really, I said everything that I wanted to say.

Because you have repeatedly asserted that random quantum vibrations are the source of 'free will' - as a part of the system - this in spite of several posters, including myself, pointing out that random quantum vibrations are not the source of information processing, not the source of behaviour and not subject to a selection process or a matter of 'will' - whether 'free will' or what we actually have; rational will and quite often irrational will. But not 'free will' because will is subject to prior information processing before formation and conscious expression.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand why you keep using descriptions like "alone" after I have repeatedly told you it wasn't what I was saying. It's too frustrating for me to continue this discussion. And really, I said everything that I wanted to say.

Because you have repeatedly asserted that random quantum vibrations are the source of 'free will' - as a part of the system - this in spite of several posters, including myself, pointing out that random quantum vibrations are not the source of information processing, not the source of behaviour and not subject to a selection process or a matter of 'will' - whether 'free will' or what we actually have; rational will and quite often irrational will. But not 'free will' because will is subject to prior information processing before formation and conscious expression.

Microtubules in neurons as information carriers

Combine information carrying with QM vibrations, and there might be more to the story.

As technology becomes more and more sensitive, we are going to find more and more variables. Neurology was just the beginning.

 

[DBT]

Because you have repeatedly asserted that random quantum vibrations are the source of 'free will' - as a part of the system - this in spite of several posters, including myself, pointing out that random quantum vibrations are not the source of information processing, not the source of behaviour and not subject to a selection process or a matter of 'will' - whether 'free will' or what we actually have; rational will and quite often irrational will. But not 'free will' because will is subject to prior information processing before formation and conscious expression.

Microtubules in neurons as information carriers

Combine information carrying with QM vibrations, and there might be more to the story.

As technology becomes more and more sensitive, we are going to find more and more variables. Neurology was just the beginning.

That doesn't support your contention, ryan

From your article:

''It is also provocative to ponder that short mobile microtubules might similarly convey information with them as they transit within the neuron. Thus, beyond their known conventional functions in supporting neuronal architecture and organelle transport, microtubules may act as 'information carriers' in the neuron''

Now if the role of microtubules does indeed extend beyond supporting neuronal architecture - which is 'provocative to ponder - and has not been proven, it is not your proposed 'random vibrations' within microtubules that act as 'information carriers' in the neuron, but another function altogether.

In other words, even if it is the case that microtubules act as information carriers, this does not support your contention that random vibrations within microtubules act upon decision making in a way that enables your concept of 'free will' because an information carrier (or transmitter) should not be randomly altering information....if it is, it is not an 'information carrier' but an information scrambler. Which is not very useful for an information carrier

Sorry ryan.

 

[ryan]

Microtubules in neurons as information carriers

Combine information carrying with QM vibrations, and there might be more to the story.

As technology becomes more and more sensitive, we are going to find more and more variables. Neurology was just the beginning.

That doesn't support your contention, ryan

From your article:

''It is also provocative to ponder that short mobile microtubules might similarly convey information with them as they transit within the neuron. Thus, beyond their known conventional functions in supporting neuronal architecture and organelle transport, microtubules may act as 'information carriers' in the neuron''

Now if the role of microtubules does indeed extend beyond supporting neuronal architecture - which is 'provocative to ponder - and has not been proven, it is not your proposed 'random vibrations' within microtubules that act as 'information carriers' in the neuron, but another function altogether.

In other words, even if it is the case that microtubules act as information carriers, this does not support your contention that random vibrations within microtubules act upon decision making in a way that enables your concept of 'free will' because an information carrier (or transmitter) should not be randomly altering information....if it is, it is not an 'information carrier' but an information scrambler. Which is not very useful for an information carrier

Sorry ryan.

But what is happening at lower levels that cause the microtubules to do what they do?

Here are some very quick videos just to give us the reality of what is going on, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx0DCA3IaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGmz4xVP50M . We aren't this fixed hardwired information processor (although I agree that we process information but in the form of qbits). But instead we are a dynamic and internally chaotic system that arises from QM.

Combine what you saw in the videos with quantum vibrations microtubules as a whole, and it is hard to fathom the vibrations, or some other QM source, not having an effect on what information the microtubules carry and how they carry it.

 

[fromderinside]

Not based on substance? Not an assertion? Self evidence requires believably at least. You got everything right up to the part about "Just the facts, ma'm" Done, done done, done.

See. I can do it a bunch of different ways.

I don't understand what you are saying.

It's hard enough to decipher what people say in full sentences over this very limited medium of communication, never mind incomplete sentences.

The first thing you need to understand is what is a complete sentence.