A simpler explanation of free will.

[ryan]

There is no need for your quibble. Energy is the energy defined in physics. Cause and effect? Cause and effect are work in physical terms. Fundamentally, we are talking about is shifting energy from one system to another. I choose to go with known roots so I go with electromagnetic energy (either classical fields or modern photons). Presently a cause and effect would be a photon exchange or a field effect.

You want to go with the one who perceives cause and effect? Be my guest. Go back a few centuries and re-establish a basis for your rational views.

Otherwise we will remain in the 21st century where enough is known about energy and work to attribute it to photon exchange or field effects if we are talking about what causes what.

Yes, there is still a cause and effect generally speaking. But the effect is probabilistic at the quantum level. The effect literally has freedom (I say literally because this is proper terminology for particle physics) and some limitations.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, there is still a cause and effect generally speaking. But the effect is probabilistic at the quantum level. The effect literally has freedom (I say literally because this is proper terminology for particle physics) and some limitations.

Oh come on. The freedom is from the perspective of the observer who is a blind man using assumptions. When the photon moves may not be observable by the observer but the photon does move from A to B excluding all other possibilities.

 

[ryan]

Yes, there is still a cause and effect generally speaking. But the effect is probabilistic at the quantum level. The effect literally has freedom (I say literally because this is proper terminology for particle physics) and some limitations.

Oh come on. The freedom is from the perspective of the observer who is a blind man using assumptions. When the photon moves may not be observable by the observer but the photon does move from A to B excluding all other possibilities.

No, when the photon is unobserved, or not collapsed, it is in such a state of uncertainty that the other possible paths that it could have travelled actually can have an effect on itself, thus the strangeness of the double slit experiment.

There are some models that can explain QM using extra dimensions. But those are only models that work mathematically and most physicists will argue they are not even scientific.

So, it is the objective randomness of QM that wins by default. It's the randomness that must take precedence over all other weaker theories and hypothesises.

 

[Juma]

No, when the photon is unobserved, or not collapsed, it is in such a state of uncertainty that the other possible paths that it could have travelled actually can have an effect on itself, thus the strangeness of the double slit experiment..

Eh? The collapse, = the observed/interacted photon, follows the schrödinger equation.
Noone knows what the unobserved/uninteracted photon does...

You confuses wave collapse with particle/wave dualism.

 

[ryan]

No, when the photon is unobserved, or not collapsed, it is in such a state of uncertainty that the other possible paths that it could have travelled actually can have an effect on itself, thus the strangeness of the double slit experiment..

Eh? The collapse, = the observed/interacted photon, follows the schrödinger equation.
Noone knows what the unobserved/uninteracted photon does...

You confuses wave collapse with particle/wave dualism.

Where did I say that we know what it's doing? What did I say that contradicts what you are saying?

 

[Juma]

Eh? The collapse, = the observed/interacted photon, follows the schrödinger equation.
Noone knows what the unobserved/uninteracted photon does...

You confuses wave collapse with particle/wave dualism.

Where did I say that we know what it's doing? What did I say that contradicts what you are saying?

"When the photon is unobserved or not collapsed, it is in a state..."

 

[ryan]

Where did I say that we know what it's doing? What did I say that contradicts what you are saying?

"When the photon is unobserved or not collapsed, it is in a state..."

You need to read the next three words. A state is not necessarily unique, example, mixed quantum states.

 

[DBT]

Which indicates that you either don't know the implications of your own claim, or you are building a strawman.

At no point did anyone say that quantum randomness is anything more than an aspect of the system (on a micro scale)...but randomness cannot be a part of the decision making process in terms of useful input into information processing and rational selection based on a given set of criteria.

So it is a part of the system in the form of misfiring, failed connections, etc, that alter the process of decision making but do not aid it....information not being random, decisions being related to specific articles and events.

So if a random quantum event happens to disrupt the rational (or irrational) process of decision making and something unrelated happens, it is specifically the random quantum event that caused the disruption and whatever unintended output was produced.

So you are in fact saying that the random event altered the process and produced something else, something that would not have happened had information processing/decision making not been disrupted.

You are using an old mechanical definition of the decision-making process, and not including the possible new findings.

No, I am not using 'an old mechanical definition' - I have repeatedly described references to the cognitive process from top to bottom, including microtubules.

It is you who is trying every trick in the book in an attempt to avoid the fact that you have no case, that you have no argument...just vague hand waving about random events changing a decision.

It doesn't work. It doesn't for the numerous reasons that have already been given to you by several posters over the course of multiple threads, me included.

The new findings of QM vibrations mean that they had the mechanical definition wrong the whole time. What they thought produced decisions turns out to be more complex.

The new ''findings'' are actually still in the speculative stage...microtubules may just be a part of the scaffolding or they may play a direct role in processing, but this is not known.

Regardless of that, it is not the random vibrations in micotubules that make decisions about how to pay the bills or what to eat for dinner, etc, etc, but the system as a whole from top to bottom.

You would have an argument if only one person had the random property while making a decision, but this research suggests that all or most humans would have this. So, we wouldn't say that it has an impact on the decision-making process because it's already an element of the decision-making process and always has been.

You are just pulling this stuff out of your hat, like a second rate magician.

Random properties do not process information.

In order to make rational decisions, the brain must necessarily process information from inputs, correlate with memory, recognize patterns and select options based on a given set of criteria...which is acquired through experience. Cost to benefit ratio.

This is not random.

Random does not help.

Random interference does not aid information processing.

If you are walking down the footpath, your actions are rational...one foot in front of the other in a rhythmic pattern. Now someone behind you decides to randomly poke a stick between your feet while you are walking, do you think this random interference is going to aid walking?

If not, why would random interference aid decision making...which should be rational and based on inputs and needs and not be interfered with randomly?

I can't believe you are saying this. It takes much more than the "glitch" to produce a decision. It is obviously a part of a much larger process in the brain.

And I can't believe you would say that, given that I have said no such thing. And you know it.

You are playing this for all its worth, aren't you?

Once the will is set; it doesn't need to change anymore.

I didn't say it did.

I said; being set by underlying conditions over which it has no regulative control, it is not an example of free will.

It may be rational will or it may be irrational will, but free it is not.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh come on. The freedom is from the perspective of the observer who is a blind man using assumptions. When the photon moves may not be observable by the observer but the photon does move from A to B excluding all other possibilities.

No, when the photon is unobserved, or not collapsed, it is in such a state of uncertainty that the other possible paths that it could have travelled actually can have an effect on itself, thus the strangeness of the double slit experiment.

There are some models that can explain QM using extra dimensions. But those are only models that work mathematically and most physicists will argue they are not even scientific.

So, it is the objective randomness of QM that wins by default. It's the randomness that must take precedence over all other weaker theories and hypothesises.

Uh no. Its just doing what photons do whatever that is. We are uncertain about what it is doing because we can't measure or observe at those scales. I'm not sure what you do when you're uncertain but me, I imagine things.

Still, propose anything you want but be certain that the photon will be where a theory about the immeasurable derived from theories and observations of the observable put it when we observe.

Can you spell determination?

 

[Juma]

"When the photon is unobserved or not collapsed, it is in a state..."

You need to read the next three words. A state is not necessarily unique, example, mixed quantum states.

Eh? Yes? I have no idea why you believed that that was a good response...

 

[ryan]

You are using an old mechanical definition of the decision-making process, and not including the possible new findings.

No, I am not using 'an old mechanical definition' - I have repeatedly described references to the cognitive process from top to bottom, including microtubules.

Okay, but as I note below, you still seem to wrongfully think that my argument implies that the vibrations is its own decision-making process capable of making decisions.

It doesn't work. It doesn't for the numerous reasons that have already been given to you by several posters over the course of multiple threads, me included.

Unlike democratic politics, philosophies don't get passed with a vote - fortunately. Come on DBT, it's the argument that matters - you know this.

Regardless of that, it is not the random vibrations in micotubules that make decisions about how to pay the bills or what to eat for dinner, etc, etc, but the system as a whole from top to bottom.

I still agree with you as I have always.

Nowhere do I say or even imply that the random vibrations make decisions. The randomness would be a part of the decision-making process, not a decision-making process by itself.

Random properties do not process information.

That is absolutely false, example, quantum computing.

In order to make rational decisions, the brain must necessarily process information from inputs, correlate with memory, recognize patterns and select options based on a given set of criteria...which is acquired through experience. Cost to benefit ratio.

I know that eating healthy is a much larger benefit/cost ratio than eating fast food, yet I do it anyway.

Sometimes I will even eat fast food after saying that I am not going to eat it for at least a week. But sometimes my will surprises me with strength for making certain choices that I didn't think I had.

Random does not help.

I will surely agree with you here.

I can't believe you are saying this. It takes much more than the "glitch" to produce a decision. It is obviously a part of a much larger process in the brain.

And I can't believe you would say that, given that I have said no such thing. And you know it.

You are playing this for all its worth, aren't you?

I meant that I agree that it takes much more than a glitch to make a decision.

 

[ryan]

No, when the photon is unobserved, or not collapsed, it is in such a state of uncertainty that the other possible paths that it could have travelled actually can have an effect on itself, thus the strangeness of the double slit experiment.

There are some models that can explain QM using extra dimensions. But those are only models that work mathematically and most physicists will argue they are not even scientific.

So, it is the objective randomness of QM that wins by default. It's the randomness that must take precedence over all other weaker theories and hypothesises.

Uh no. Its just doing what photons do whatever that is. We are uncertain about what it is doing because we can't measure or observe at those scales. I'm not sure what you do when you're uncertain but me, I imagine things.

Still, propose anything you want but be certain that the photon will be where a theory about the immeasurable derived from theories and observations of the observable put it when we observe.

QM is not just about uncertainty; it's also about the evidence pointing towards a truly random behavior.

 

[ryan]

You need to read the next three words. A state is not necessarily unique, example, mixed quantum states.

Eh? Yes? I have no idea why you believed that that was a good response...

This no surprise.

 

[DBT]

No, I am not using 'an old mechanical definition' - I have repeatedly described references to the cognitive process from top to bottom, including microtubules.

Okay, but as I note below, you still seem to wrongfully think that my argument implies that the vibrations is its own decision-making process capable of making decisions.

You are not being honest. I have always said that random elements may alter the decision making process, the latter being the work of neural networks.

Stop making BS interpretations like I think ''your argument implies that the vibrations is its own decision-making process capable of making decisions'' -

I have never have said or implied any such thing.

Unlike democratic politics, philosophies don't get passed with a vote - fortunately. Come on DBT, it's the argument that matters - you know this.

You have still not given an argument. Just an asssertion based on false assumptions and whole lot equivocation with randomness and freedom.

Random events not allowing a choice of a preferred option.

I still agree with you as I have always.

Yet you ignore what I say and make up your own narrative of what you say I mean in defence of an irration claim

Nowhere do I say or even imply that the random vibrations make decisions. The randomness would be a part of the decision-making process, not a decision-making process by itself.

Nobody has said otherwise. That your Red Herring.

That is absolutely false, example, quantum computing.

You appear to be confusing random number generators with actual quantum computing, sorting information, which is not random....nor has QC yet been developed beyond the basics. The probabilistic nature of quantum scale being a problem for information processing.

I know that eating healthy is a much larger benefit/cost ratio than eating fast food, yet I do it anyway.

Which is an example of irrational will, being the opposite of rational will...which I have aready pointed out numerous times.

Sometimes I will even eat fast food after saying that I am not going to eat it for at least a week. But sometimes my will surprises me with strength for making certain choices that I didn't think I had.

Which does you out of your so called argument for free will because it shows that both you and your behaviour is shaped and formed by an activity beyond your own regulative control, but just the system at work. The system being at work either with or without the presence of your experience, conscious self, self awareness, I, me, myself.

 

[ryan]

Okay, but as I note below, you still seem to wrongfully think that my argument implies that the vibrations is its own decision-making process capable of making decisions.

You are not being honest. I have always said that random elements may alter the decision making process, the latter being the work of neural networks.

But when you say it that way, you are separating the random elements from the decision-making process.

People loosely say such kinds of things like, the frame of the car holds the car together. But then the person separates the frame from the implied definition of a car that already has a frame. More precisely, they should say that the frame holds pieces of the car together.

Normally, I wouldn't bring this up, but it is actually an important part of my argument. We must remember that the randomness may be a part of the decision-making process.

Cognitive scientists may have had a incomplete mechanical explanation of the decision-making process.

Stop making BS interpretations like I think ''your argument implies that the vibrations is its own decision-making process capable of making decisions'' -

I have never have said or implied any such thing.

Well then how else can I interpret this,

You are saying that the glitch produced the decision whether you see it or not.

or this,

Regardless of that, it is not the random vibrations in micotubules that make decisions about how to pay the bills or what to eat for dinner, etc, etc, but the system as a whole from top to bottom

from posts #137 and #148 respectively.

I still agree with you as I have always.

Yet you ignore what I say and make up your own narrative of what you say I mean in defence of an irration claim

Okay, but it sure seems like your other post about the randomness making the decisions when it's really only a factor in making a decision.

Let's just move on then.

That is absolutely false, example, quantum computing.

You appear to be confusing random number generators with actual quantum computing, sorting information, which is not random....nor has QC yet been developed beyond the basics. The probabilistic nature of quantum scale being a problem for information processing.

Anything that has any physical effect on anything else processes information. That is all "processing information" generally means.

Regarding quantum computing, anytime anything fixes the state of some quantum state, it is processing. It would be processing a qubit or qubits.

I know that eating healthy is a much larger benefit/cost ratio than eating fast food, yet I do it anyway.

Which is an example of irrational will, being the opposite of rational will...which I have aready pointed out numerous times.

Okay, but you were saying "random doesn't help", and I was explaining how decisions aren't always helpful.

Sometimes I will even eat fast food after saying that I am not going to eat it for at least a week. But sometimes my will surprises me with strength for making certain choices that I didn't think I had.

Which does you out of your so called argument for free will because it shows that both you and your behaviour is shaped and formed by an activity beyond your own regulative control, but just the system at work. The system being at work either with or without the presence of your experience, conscious self, self awareness, I, me, myself.

Remember what I defined "I" as. It had to have the decision-making process included.

 

[DBT]

Well then how else can I interpret this.

You intepret it in relation to what you are saying - that quantum randomess alters the process of decision making.

What you need to explain is how random alteration is related to 'chosen' or ''willed'' or 'free will'' or how random alterations may produce relevant results, results that actually relate to information exchange and problem solving, and not just as non adapative interferance. Which is neither willed or chosen.

Yet you label it 'free will'

Okay, but it sure seems like your other post about the randomness making the decisions when it's really only a factor in making a decision.

A factor that, according to you, inexplicably, produces an alternative decision.

That is what you need to explain.

How randomness is able to alter the decision making process sufficently in order the produce a different decision, a rational decision instead of an incoherant nonsense response.

Let's just move on then.

You wish. I bet you would rather make vague claims and repeat them without explanation, a related argument or evidence.

Anything that has any physical effect on anything else processes information. That is all "processing information" generally means.

Which relates randomness to rational decision making in a useful way....how?

Regarding quantum computing, anytime anything fixes the state of some quantum state, it is processing. It would be processing a qubit or qubits.

Then you should be explaining quantum computing in terms of randomness in relation to solving practical problems, selecting options based on a given set of criteria...instead of making vague assertions that do not appear to relate to your claims.

Okay, but you were saying "random doesn't help", and I was explaining how decisions aren't always helpful.

Decisions that are nor helpful are still decisions based on information interaction, memory function/experience - the developed craving for sugar and junk food for example - and not random elements.

This is what you are failing to grasp.

Remember what I defined "I" as. It had to have the decision-making process included.

Your definition is flawed. The system is modular. You are using the term ''I'' in relation to stuctures and functions that have no sense of ''I'' or regulative control over input/system interaction. It does not work. You are equivocating.

 

[ryan]

You intepret it in relation to what you are saying - that quantum randomess alters the process of decision making.

What you need to explain is how random alteration is related to 'chosen' or ''willed'' or 'free will'' or how random alterations may produce relevant results, results that actually relate to information exchange and problem solving, and not just as non adapative interferance. Which is neither willed or chosen.

Yet you label it 'free will'

I am assuming that it is possible that the quantum effects are large enough to allow a person to have chosen differently.

Okay, but it sure seems like your other post about the randomness making the decisions when it's really only a factor in making a decision.

A factor that, according to you, inexplicably, produces an alternative decision.

That is what you need to explain.

Nobody knows this yet. I am only saying that until we know whether decision making is fixed or involves some randomness, free will, as it's defined, is possible.

How randomness is able to alter the decision making process sufficently in order the produce a different decision, a rational decision instead of an incoherant nonsense response.

Why do you keep saying rational?

Anything that has any physical effect on anything else processes information. That is all "processing information" generally means.

Which relates randomness to rational decision making in a useful way....how?

You are the one who took me down this path. I am answering your concerns directly. Read what you were saying and why I said that.

Regarding quantum computing, anytime anything fixes the state of some quantum state, it is processing. It would be processing a qubit or qubits.

Then you should be explaining quantum computing in terms of randomness in relation to solving practical problems, selecting options based on a given set of criteria...instead of making vague assertions that do not appear to relate to your claims.

No, the whole point is that we see decisions being made that don't make sense, like my fast food choices.

Okay, but you were saying "random doesn't help", and I was explaining how decisions aren't always helpful.

Decisions that are nor helpful are still decisions based on information interaction, memory function/experience - the developed craving for sugar and junk food for example - and not random elements.

Well then what kind of "helpful" are you talking about? It would seem to be most helpful for me to choose not to eat fast food.

Remember what I defined "I" as. It had to have the decision-making process included.

Your definition is flawed. The system is modular. You are using the term ''I'' in relation to stuctures and functions that have no sense of ''I'' or regulative control over input/system interaction. It does not work. You are equivocating.

So do you think it is normal to say that decisions are not made by "me"/"I"?

 

[DBT]

I am assuming that it is possible that the quantum effects are large enough to allow a person to have chosen differently.

How could the person have ''chosen differently'' given that any modificaton by a random element is not a choice.

The 'person' does not choose how a random event within the system, even as a part of the system, effects the course of decision making, so it is not a choice.

You insist on labeling something that is not chosen, or a choice, a choice.

It's absurd.

Can't you see that?

Nobody knows this yet. I am only saying that until we know whether decision making is fixed or involves some randomness, free will, as it's defined, is possible.

Not being chosen, not being willed, not being wanted, not being instigated, controlled or initiated for any reason, a random event within the system that alters the normal course of decision making/information processing cannot be logically defined as 'free will'

Your contention is illogical.

Why do you keep saying rational?

Because decisions are either rational (adaptive, beneficial) or irrational (maladaptive, self desructive) - hence we have rational will or irrational will but not free will, for the given reasons.

You are the one who took me down this path. I am answering your concerns directly. Read what you were saying and why I said that.

So you can't answer the question. Fine.

No, the whole point is that we see decisions being made that don't make sense, like my fast food choices.

No, my challenge for you was:
Then you should be explaining quantum computing in terms of randomness in relation to solving practical problems, selecting options based on a given set of criteria...instead of making vague assertions that do not appear to relate to your claims.

If you can't meet the challenge is understandable

So do you think it is normal to say that decisions are not made by "me"/"I"?

Define "me"/"I"

Is your "me"/"I" aware of neural information processing?

Is your "me"/"I" aware of any quantum random alteration to that process?

Does your "me"/"I" have any regulative control of information processing, or how quantum events may effect changes to the normal course of electro chemical/neural network activity?

 

[ryan]

DBT, I don't think we are going to get anywhere, so I am done.

 

[DBT]

DBT, I don't think we are going to get anywhere, so I am done.

All the best, ryan.

See you in the next thread.