But I have responded to this many times, yet you don't address my response. You keep going back to this same objection. For this discussion to progress, you must address my responses whether they are good responses or not. Look at what I put in bold in your part of this post. I have tried to address this many times, but then you bring something else up.
For the last time, the QM vibrations wouldn't be acting on the decision-making process; they would be a part of the decision-making process. Even Juma agreed with me here in post #734, and I am pretty sure he would argue against his own existence if it meant proving me wrong about something. Read that post that I made to Juma; maybe it is a clearer explanation of what I am trying to tell you.
That is where you go wrong, ryan. That is your error.
Random vibrations/atomic decay, or whatever random quantum element you care to invoke is not identical with the deterministic structures and processes of sifting information in order to benefit from the selection that is made according to the evolved needs of an organism....regardless of its presence within the system as a form of random 'noise'
Consequently, it may well be a part of the system as random noise, but noise that acts upon the deterministic structures of the brain in unpredictable and and non willed ways. More likely than not being expressed as a mental glitch....you forgot where you left your keys or someone's name, etc.
So it's not that I have failed to address your claims, but you fail to support your own claim with a reasoned argument backed by evidence. You cannot show that random elements, if present, are beneficial to decision making.
And you completely ignore the fact that random changes to decision making are not willed. You simply tack the term 'free will' onto something that has no relationship to will.
I addressed this exact argument two days ago (#718), but you cut it out of my post. I will not repeat myself anymore. If you won't read what I say, then I have no interest in furthering this discussion.
Except that you did not address a single thing in that post.
You made some vague generalizations - for example - ''Normally, if I have an urge, say to eat ice cream after supper, my will may allow me to do it. But sometimes my will intervenes on my urge, and then I don't eat ice cream.'' - remarks which are not even accurate in terms of the cognitive process.
As if 'you' or 'your will' are separate entities and not aspects of the same process, as if the urge to eat ice cream is somehow a different agency to the urge to abstain, or that any part of this information processing has anything to do with random quantum fluctuations as a reliable and beneficial input into decision making.
