A simpler explanation of free will.

[bilby]

DBT, I don't think your constituency are holding their own very well.

FTFY.

 

[Juma]

The reason anyone, with his wits still working, talks about the importance of being able to have chosen otherwise, is to make people reasponsible for their actions. As in "He was a bad person, he could have saved that boys life by shooting the lion".

My argument means that we would be free to make mistakes or do things that others consider as wrong. If jails are meant to change a person's behavior, then that means that jails are also meant to change a person's brain chemistry. The neural pathways that allowed that "free" option by way of QM might actually become closed off. We know this works with kids; it's debatable whether it works with adults.

1)As you may notice this is a !hypotetical! question. Thus not really a question wether the mechanism behind the decision could have worked differently.

I don't know what question you are referring to. I don't understand what you mean here.

2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.

My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.

And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....

1) "could have acted differently" is s hypotecal question. Not one about actual physical mechanisms. (Your QM theory is a good example why the physical interpretation doesnt make sense)

2) acting randomly different. (Which would be the result of your QM theory) results in an insane behaviour, not a "free"

 

[ryan]

My argument means that we would be free to make mistakes or do things that others consider as wrong. If jails are meant to change a person's behavior, then that means that jails are also meant to change a person's brain chemistry. The neural pathways that allowed that "free" option by way of QM might actually become closed off. We know this works with kids; it's debatable whether it works with adults.

1)As you may notice this is a !hypotetical! question. Thus not really a question wether the mechanism behind the decision could have worked differently.

I don't know what question you are referring to. I don't understand what you mean here.

2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.

My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.

And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....

1) "could have acted differently" is s hypotecal question. Not one about actual physical mechanisms. (Your QM theory is a good example why the physical interpretation doesnt make sense)

2) acting randomly different. (Which would be the result of your QM theory) results in an insane behaviour, not a "free"

This tells me that you have no idea what my argument is about.

And I strongly believe that you would never actually concede to anything I or anybody says no matter how blatantly wrong you might be. That's the problem with being such an antagonist all of the time and having such a crappy attitude. You don't even seem to have any respect for anyone. Unless you change, people will just start ignoring you like I have started to do and wish I did do a long time ago.

 

[Juma]

My argument means that we would be free to make mistakes or do things that others consider as wrong. If jails are meant to change a person's behavior, then that means that jails are also meant to change a person's brain chemistry. The neural pathways that allowed that "free" option by way of QM might actually become closed off. We know this works with kids; it's debatable whether it works with adults.

1)As you may notice this is a !hypotetical! question. Thus not really a question wether the mechanism behind the decision could have worked differently.

I don't know what question you are referring to. I don't understand what you mean here.

2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.

My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.

And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....

1) "could have acted differently" is s hypotecal question. Not one about actual physical mechanisms. (Your QM theory is a good example why the physical interpretation doesnt make sense)

2) acting randomly different. (Which would be the result of your QM theory) results in an insane behaviour, not a "free"

This tells me that you have no idea what my argument is about.

And I strongly believe that you would never actually concede to anything I or anybody says no matter how blatantly wrong you might be. That's the problem with being such an antagonist all of the time and having such a crappy attitude. You don't even seem to have any respect for anyone. Unless you change, people will just start ignoring you like I have started to do and wish I did do a long time ago.

I read what you write. If your argument is something else than what you put in print then how the hell should anyone know what you really mean? Mind reading?

Youre argument from what you write is: QM is random => random input to decisions possible => free will is possible.

But you are right: I have no "respect" for anyone. i have respect for good arguments and decent discussions.

 

[ryan]

And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....

Swallow your overinflated ego, and you might actually learn something about how poorly you are arguing.

You wrote, "2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.".

Then I responded with, "My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.".

Then you ignorantly replied with, "And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....".

Now pay really close attention to my reply that you just brushed off. The choice between killing the lion that is running at you and killing the lion that is running towards your friend does not have an insane outcome; either choice is perfectly normal as far as human behavior is concerned. So I am explaining how there can randomness between two choices with neither being insane. But a "hardwired" choice like 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 3 could have an insane outcome for a person who knows math, but those are not the kinds of choices that I am saying have randomness.

 

[DBT]

Yet you yourself appear to be extremely certain of your own position, regardless of the fatal problems with that position....which have been repeatedly pointed out.

This is maddening. I am shocked that you still think this.

Have you tried sighing? That might help. Or take a few deep breaths. Failing that take an aspirin and lie down for a while.

The fact is you are arguing quite strenuously for your claim, dancing, dodging, weaving, jumping, ducking...you could easily be a contestant in ''so you think you can dance'' - after all, we know you can dance when it comes to defending your claim.

I admittedly have to assume indeterminism (which is not a stretch but certainly not certain). I have to assume that the QM effects of the microtubules actually could allow a decision to have been different. I even have to assume monism (not a stretch for you but a stretch for me).

I take these assumptions, and many more, to fit a definition of free will. The definition being that we could have chosen differently. If the microtubules in our decision-making process allow this, then I have what I need.

Forget about the "free" and "will" parts of the term; it's the definition that you should focus on.

You can make all the assumptions in the World but the fact remains that you do not choose quantum interference, which may perhaps alter the course of information processing on occasion, but as the alteration is neither chosen or willed this is not an instance of 'free will' - therefore you have no case. Just another brain glitch.

DBT, I don't think your constituency are holding their own very well.

Pure comedy. It must be a symptom of a combination of sighing and shock that increased oxygen level in the brain.

 

[Juma]

And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....

Swallow your overinflated ego, and you might actually learn something about how poorly you are arguing.

You wrote, "2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.".

Then I responded with, "My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.".

Then you ignorantly replied with, "And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....".

Now pay really close attention to how you just brushed off my response to the first quote. The choice between killing the lion that is running at you and killing the lion that is running towards your friend does not have an insane outcome; either choice is perfectly normal as far as human behavior is concerned. So I am explaining how there can randomness between two choices with neither being insane. But a "hardwired" choice like 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 3 could have an insane outcome for a person who knows math.

? Sorry man but It is you that have invented that lion story. I didnt mentioned any details. It was simply an example of an action.

I duly note that this is your way of dodging what I actually wrote and then clarified in the following post. But then this has been your modus operandi for a ling time so I'm not suprised.

 

[ryan]

I admittedly have to assume indeterminism (which is not a stretch but certainly not certain). I have to assume that the QM effects of the microtubules actually could allow a decision to have been different. I even have to assume monism (not a stretch for you but a stretch for me).

I take these assumptions, and many more, to fit a definition of free will. The definition being that we could have chosen differently. If the microtubules in our decision-making process allow this, then I have what I need.

Forget about the "free" and "will" parts of the term; it's the definition that you should focus on.

You can make all the assumptions in the World but the fact remains that you do not choose quantum interference, which may perhaps alter the course of information processing on occasion, but as the alteration is neither chosen or willed this is not an instance of 'free will' - therefore you have no case. Just another brain glitch.

So, let me just replace where you put "free will" with its definition, and let's see if it makes sense.

You can make all the assumptions in the World but the fact remains that you do not choose quantum interference, which may perhaps alter the course of information processing on occasion, but as the alteration is neither chosen or willed this is not an instance of the ability to have chosen differently - therefore you have no case. Just another brain glitch.

Like I told Juma, before the discussion went horribly wrong like usual, the "glitch" as you put it might actually be the difference between close decisions. Take the scenario I gave about a lion running after you while another lion runs after your friend, and you have only one bullet in your gun. Our "glitches" may be the difference in these kinds of close/tough choices. Furthermore it may still feel like we were in control of that decision since the mechanics of the decision-making process took a certain path.

This is not proof, and I am far from certain about all of this, but it does seem to be a reasonable possibility.

 

[ryan]

Swallow your overinflated ego, and you might actually learn something about how poorly you are arguing.

You wrote, "2) if he had acted differently due to random reasons (as by your QM effects) that would have no impact on his morailty but on the mans apparent sanity.".

Then I responded with, "My argument is not meant for clear and easy decisions. Shooting the lion is a "hardwired" choice for most people. I am talking about a choice, say, if the lion were running towards your friend and another lion is running towards you, but you only have one bullet.".

Then you ignorantly replied with, "And again you managed to get actually none of the points i made....".

Now pay really close attention to how you just brushed off my response to the first quote. The choice between killing the lion that is running at you and killing the lion that is running towards your friend does not have an insane outcome; either choice is perfectly normal as far as human behavior is concerned. So I am explaining how there can randomness between two choices with neither being insane. But a "hardwired" choice like 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 3 could have an insane outcome for a person who knows math.

? Sorry man but It is you that have invented that lion story. I didnt mentioned any details. It was simply an example of an action.

I duly note that this is your way of dodging what I actually wrote and then clarified in the following post. But then this has been your modus operandi for a ling time so I'm not suprised.

I really think you need to go back some posts and actually see what transpired.

 

[Juma]

? Sorry man but It is you that have invented that lion story. I didnt mentioned any details. It was simply an example of an action.

I duly note that this is your way of dodging what I actually wrote and then clarified in the following post. But then this has been your modus operandi for a ling time so I'm not suprised.

I really think you need to go back some posts and actually see what transpired.

I am perfectly aware of what has happened and it is you that has misinterpreted my post #96.

Go back my post #96. Assume that the decision to not shoot the lion was a very deliberate one. Then comment to the actual points I make. (Which has very little to do with your cooments on the lion story)

 

[ryan]

I really think you need to go back some posts and actually see what transpired.

I am perfectly aware of what has happened and it is you that has misinterpreted my post #96.

Go back my post #96. Assume that the decision to not shoot the lion was a very deliberate one. Then comment to the actual points I make. (Which has very little to do with your cooments on the lion story)

Okay, insane or not, he still made that choice. Unless you are referring to some kind of homunculus that dictates decision making with QM only there to screw it up, you should accept that a choice is a choice. But my argument is more about tough or close choices/decisions. You found some extreme example that isn't really a typical decision that would have free will in my model.

 

[fromderinside]

Now there's a bad analogy. All light is made of photons which have different levels of energy, or, for this discussion frequency which our receptors can report. Saying white would be like saying QM permits choice because, what the hey, the energies when they are mixed average out to white. Fact of the matter is there is no choice in QM, just different energies which may result in different entities based on rules. No freedom there. What results are just random energy outcomes of those which are available which is, by the way, what we see as white when frequencies are randomly mixed together.

The parts do not share the same properties as the whole. The whole could be moving south, but a part could be moving north.

For systems as intricate and small as neurological processes, one random event can have a chaotic effect on the whole. It might be enough to actually have a significant impact on what choice is made, specifically close choices.

Thanks for the butterfly analogy for no rational reason. They share the same general property, energy, and the same organizational property, organization. That's enough. Sharing properties as a whole is really something that's kills the heirarchists. They're satisfied with sharing at a level and getting their hierarchies destroyed every generation or so. You seem to be taking that point and arguing it for reductionist interpretation. Doesn't work. Presuming same suite of properties at all levels is their thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I am perfectly aware of what has happened and it is you that has misinterpreted my post #96.

Go back my post #96. Assume that the decision to not shoot the lion was a very deliberate one. Then comment to the actual points I make. (Which has very little to do with your cooments on the lion story)

Okay, insane or not, he still made that choice. ...

Of course you know he's the cause, the source of the action? I didn't think so. Retool and begin again sir.

 

[Juma]

I am perfectly aware of what has happened and it is you that has misinterpreted my post #96.

Go back my post #96. Assume that the decision to not shoot the lion was a very deliberate one. Then comment to the actual points I make. (Which has very little to do with your cooments on the lion story)

Okay, insane or not, he still made that choice. Unless you are referring to some kind of homunculus that dictates decision making with QM only there to screw it up, you should accept that a choice is a choice. But my argument is more about tough or close choices/decisions. You found some extreme example that isn't really a typical decision that would have free will in my model.

For fuck sake! The lion story is NOT my point! Read the post again but skip the lion story!

I dont understand why you cannot focus on what the post really states..,

 

[ryan]

The parts do not share the same properties as the whole. The whole could be moving south, but a part could be moving north.

For systems as intricate and small as neurological processes, one random event can have a chaotic effect on the whole. It might be enough to actually have a significant impact on what choice is made, specifically close choices.

Thanks for the butterfly analogy for no rational reason. They share the same general property, energy, and the same organizational property, organization. That's enough. Sharing properties as a whole is really something that's kills the heirarchists. They're satisfied with sharing at a level and getting their hierarchies destroyed every generation or so. You seem to be taking that point and arguing it for reductionist interpretation. Doesn't work. Presuming same suite of properties at all levels is their thing.

Yeah, I meant that they don't share all properties. Of course they share some properties.

But here's the problem that I have with your post before your last one. The QM, just like any other classical mechanisms of the whole does not make choices either. The entire system called the decision-making process makes the choice. It would get its element of freedom by its intrinsic property QM (this is a time where a property is shared at higher levels). Now, if you were to say that only CM makes the choice, you would have to apply your argument to yourself. You would have to say that any particular CM element in the decision-making process does not make a choice either. Instead it only makes sense that the entire system makes the choice as defined by the decision-making process, and the parts combined give it behavior with or without freedom.

Okay, insane or not, he still made that choice. ...

Of course you know he's the cause, the source of the action? I didn't think so. Retool and begin again sir.

Define "he" physically, and you will see that he made the choice.

 

[ryan]

Okay, insane or not, he still made that choice. Unless you are referring to some kind of homunculus that dictates decision making with QM only there to screw it up, you should accept that a choice is a choice. But my argument is more about tough or close choices/decisions. You found some extreme example that isn't really a typical decision that would have free will in my model.

For fuck sake! The lion story is NOT my point! Read the post again but skip the lion story!

I dont understand why you cannot focus on what the post really states..,

Okay, but think about what "is he responsible?" really means. Is his homunculus responsible or is his known biological system responsible? If the homunculus exists (or dualism), then we would have to have a whole new discussion. But if we are sticking with monism/physicalism/science, then we say that his body is responsible, end of story.

 

[Juma]

For fuck sake! The lion story is NOT my point! Read the post again but skip the lion story!

I dont understand why you cannot focus on what the post really states..,

Okay, but think about what "is he responsible?" really means. Is his homunculus responsible or is his known biological system responsible? If the homunculus exists (or dualism), then we would have to have a whole new discussion. But if we are sticking with monism/physicalism/science, then we say that his body is responsible, end of story.

No. I wont "think about what is he responsible means". That is not the point of my post. Please stop derailing.

 

[ryan]

Okay, but think about what "is he responsible?" really means. Is his homunculus responsible or is his known biological system responsible? If the homunculus exists (or dualism), then we would have to have a whole new discussion. But if we are sticking with monism/physicalism/science, then we say that his body is responsible, end of story.

No. I wont "think about what is he responsible means". That is not the point of my post. Please stop derailing.

It's in the part of the post that you want me to comment on.

 

[Juma]

No. I wont "think about what is he responsible means". That is not the point of my post. Please stop derailing.

It's in the part of the post that you want me to comment on.

No. The question what "is he responsible" means is not part of my post.

Try again.

 

[ryan]

Juma, if we have dualism, then everything changes. With dualism, maybe we can somehow peer deep inside someone's soul and see what the true intention was. If it does not align with the biological response, then no, the person should not be accountable for the action made. And maybe we can correct the person's biology so that it responds to the soul appropriately, seriously. But if all we have is a body that does whatever it does, then we don't really have a choice to hold that person accountable.

If the behavior is inconsistent with how that person normally functions, we put them in a psych ward. But if that person commits a crime that needed some thought and time to execute like dealing drugs or stealing, then it would be safer to say that it isn't a "glitch" in the person's system, and we try to change the behavior with jail.

 

[Juma]

Juma, if we have dualism, then everything changes. With dualism, maybe we can somehow peer deep inside someone's soul and see what the true intention was. If it does not align with the biological response, then no, the person should not be accountable for the action made. And maybe we can correct the person's biology so that it responds to the soul appropriately, seriously. But if all we have is a body that does whatever it does, then we don't really have a choice to hold that person accountable.

If the behavior is inconsistent with how that person normally functions, we put them in a psych ward. But if that person commits a crime that needed some thought and time to execute like dealing drugs or stealing, then it would be safer to say that it isn't a "glitch" in the person's system, and we try to change the behavior with jail.

Still not commenting my post.