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.