Free Will And Free Choice

[DBT]

Science, the experiments, case studies, lesions, chemical imbalances, neural connectivity, structures, organs, etc, etc, provide the evidence for brain agency: that it is the brain that generates consciousness.

You are denying the evidence by asserting your own beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

You have a faith based set of beliefs.

They provide no information about agency.

To think so is just a delusion, like thinking Jesus is watching every move you make.

Science has no understanding of what causes an arm to move when you will it to move.

NONE!

They merely see activity arise and have no understanding of what caused the activity to arise.

They ask the subject "Did you cause that activity to appear?".

The subject says "I don't know."

From this a ridiculous claim of brain agency appears like a spirit.

Yawn....just another version of your Mantra. No explanation for your idea of autonomy of mind, not hint on how it may work, just assertions and declarations that go in the face of all evidence to the contrary - that the state of mind in any given instance in time is a reflection of the state and information condition of the brain in that instance in time....that the brain is generating mind.

 

[WAB]

How do you delude yourself into thinking you feel pain? And if pain is generated by the brain, it may be due to faulty mechanisms, residual impulses from past injuries that have become habituated and chronic.

No, I do not doubt at all that people feel pain. But I gather from fromder's posting history that subjective reportage is undependable, that it lacks scientific rigor. So, again, how do I know, how can I know, that fromderinside really feels pain simply because he says he does? Should I take his word for it?...

My own answer is yes, of course we should take his word for it.

Although, I don't really know. Maybe fromderinside is making stuff up about his pain? Or imagining it?

I worked at a hospital for six years. It was drummed into caregivers' heads that they were to take testimony of pain as reality. If a person said they were an eight, you treated them as if it were an eight. No arguments. Unless it was a person who was a regular (they call them frequent flyers) who was fishing for pain medication.

And, what is all this nonsense about a seven second reaction time in people? Seven seconds? Or am I wrong?

I am probably wrong!

Show me the science that demonstrates that human reaction to something takes "X" (whatever you say) amount of time.

How does that research account for this? Athletes reacting within milliseconds to things that happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxJN3hK9bs

 

[DBT]

How do you delude yourself into thinking you feel pain? And if pain is generated by the brain, it may be due to faulty mechanisms, residual impulses from past injuries that have become habituated and chronic.

No, I do not doubt at all that people feel pain. But I gather from fromder's posting history that subjective reportage is undependable, that it lacks scientific rigor. So, again, how do I know, how can I know, that fromderinside really feels pain simply because he says he does? Should I take his word for it?...

My own answer is yes, of course we should take his word for it.

Although, I don't really know. Maybe fromderinside is making stuff up about his pain? Or imagining it?

I worked at a hospital for six years. It was drummed into caregivers' heads that they were to take testimony of pain as reality. If a person said they were an eight, you treated them as if it were an eight. No arguments. Unless it was a person who was a regular (they call them frequent flyers) who was fishing for pain medication.

And, what is all this nonsense about a seven second reaction time in people? Seven seconds? Or am I wrong?

I am probably wrong!

Show me the science that demonstrates that human reaction to something takes "X" (whatever you say) amount of time.

How does that research account for this? Athletes reacting within milliseconds to things that happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxJN3hK9bs

Reaction time depends on the nature of the stimulus. Reflex actions triggering nerve loops that bypass the brain being the fastest.

Mind/Consciousess, sight, sound, thoughts, feelings, etc, is a brain architecture response to stimulus.

 

[untermensche]

Science, the experiments, case studies, lesions, chemical imbalances, neural connectivity, structures, organs, etc, etc, provide the evidence for brain agency: that it is the brain that generates consciousness.

You are denying the evidence by asserting your own beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

You have a faith based set of beliefs.

They provide no information about agency.

To think so is just a delusion, like thinking Jesus is watching every move you make.

Science has no understanding of what causes an arm to move when you will it to move.

NONE!

They merely see activity arise and have no understanding of what caused the activity to arise.

They ask the subject "Did you cause that activity to appear?".

The subject says "I don't know."

From this a ridiculous claim of brain agency appears like a spirit.

Yawn....just another version of your Mantra. No explanation for your idea of autonomy of mind, not hint on how it may work, just assertions and declarations that go in the face of all evidence to the contrary - that the state of mind in any given instance in time is a reflection of the state and information condition of the brain in that instance in time....that the brain is generating mind.

What you ignorantly call a "mantra" are facts you can't refute in any way.

There is not one study that has ever looked at the will.

Science does not have the slightest idea what it is.

Your religious proclamations about research you clearly don't understand are getting tiring.

You should stop posting studies since your words and the studies have no connection.

 

[untermensche]

No. I meant I feel my current experience of pain feels like it's worse than no pain at all, yet less than a strong pain, I feel pain as a three-four level experience out of nine level experience of pain. Our it's a normal spread of fingers relative to a maximum spread of fingers.

I feel pain relative to other experiences of pain.

Like I said if you want I'm in teaching mode.

Yeah but your pain has no objective data backing it up. Your confession of experiencing pain is mere reportage, with zero scientific data to support it.

How do I know you really feel pain? You could be lying, or deluded.

In other words pain is a subjective experience.

The nature of subjective experience is only the subject has access to the experience.

People lie about having pain all the time.

It is called malingering.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah but your pain has no objective data backing it up. Your confession of experiencing pain is mere reportage, with zero scientific data to support it.

How do I know you really feel pain? You could be lying, or deluded.

Oh I wouldn't say that. By referring to teaching mode I refer to work I've actually done on Workload and Pain in the field with pilots. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. We only used persons who had documented experience of extreme pain in the past. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. In addition we validated that by giving them some samples of experience using electrical stimulation. The workload stuff was easier. We used simulators and actual task scenarios with different loads.

It all was actual experiment. All within standards.

...and I don't care how you particularly feel.

As for you untermensche it's pretty clear you don't know your hat from a saddle.

 

[DBT]

Yawn....just another version of your Mantra. No explanation for your idea of autonomy of mind, not hint on how it may work, just assertions and declarations that go in the face of all evidence to the contrary - that the state of mind in any given instance in time is a reflection of the state and information condition of the brain in that instance in time....that the brain is generating mind.

What you ignorantly call a "mantra" are facts you can't refute in any way.

There is not one study that has ever looked at the will.

Science does not have the slightest idea what it is.

Your religious proclamations about research you clearly don't understand are getting tiring.

You should stop posting studies since your words and the studies have no connection.

I call it a Mantra because you just repeat the same lines over and over.

You do that without ever explaining your claims.

When asked to explain how mind could possibly achieve autonomy from the brain, you just repeat the same lines.

When presented with experiments, case studies, analysis by researchers, etc - evidence - you reject it all, then repeat your lines.

So, yes, you have a Mantra.

Meanwhile:

Brain function:
"For the past twelve years", says Dehaene, "my research team has been using every available brain research tool, from functional MRI to electro- and magneto-encephalography and even electrodes inserted deep in the human brain, to shed light on the brain mechanisms of consciousness. I am now happy to report that we have acquired a good working hypothesis. In experiment after experiment, we have seen the same signatures of consciousness: physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change when a person reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit or a sound).

"Furthermore, when we render the same information non-conscious or "subliminal", all the signatures disappear. We have a theory about why these signatures occur, called the global neuronal workspace theory. Realistic computer simulations of neurons reproduce our main experimental findings: when the information processed exceeds a threshold for large-scale communication across many brain areas, the network ignites into a large-scale synchronous state, and all our signatures suddenly appear.

But this is already more than a theory. We are now applying our ideas to non-communicating patients in coma, vegetative state, or locked-in syndromes. The test that we have designed with Tristan Bekinschtein, Lionel Naccache, and Laurent Cohen, based on our past experiments and theory, seems to reliably sort out which patients retain some residual conscious life and which do not.''

 

[untermensche]

When asked to explain how mind could possibly achieve autonomy from the brain, you just repeat the same lines.

I have told you that is not needed to make philosophical claims.

I do not need to know how the mind has autonomy to know a truth claim from a mind that is not autonomous is meaningless.

If some entity is forced to think something is true as opposed to freely concluding it is true then what it thinks is true is meaningless.

What gives value to anything a human thinks is true is the freedom to use evidence or argument to make truth conclusions.

When presented with experiments, case studies, analysis by researchers, etc - evidence - you reject it all, then repeat your lines.

When presented with rational arguments you simply don't respond.

You seem to think rational arguments in a philosophy forum have no place.

Either you can't respond or with your will decide not to.

Reading everything you write leads me to freely conclude you can't.

we have seen the same signatures of consciousness: physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change when a person reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit or a sound).

Seeing cells respond is a million miles from knowing what the cells are doing and how consciousness is arising from it.

You have your religion.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah but your pain has no objective data backing it up. Your confession of experiencing pain is mere reportage, with zero scientific data to support it.

How do I know you really feel pain? You could be lying, or deluded.

Oh I wouldn't say that. By referring to teaching mode I refer to work I've actually done on Workload and Pain in the field with pilots. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. We only used persons who had documented experience of extreme pain in the past. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. In addition we validated that by giving them some samples of experience using electrical stimulation. The workload stuff was easier. We used simulators and actual task scenarios with different loads.

It all was actual experiment. All within standards.

...and I don't care how you particularly feel.

As for you untermensche it's pretty clear you don't know your hat from a saddle.

Yeah that's right.

Doctors send me patients to treat their pain but I know nothing about it like you.

First words from the professor on the topic of 'pain' in physical therapy school:

"Pain is a subjective experience."

And 30 years later I know it is absolutely true.

 

[WAB]

Yeah but your pain has no objective data backing it up. Your confession of experiencing pain is mere reportage, with zero scientific data to support it.

How do I know you really feel pain? You could be lying, or deluded.

Oh I wouldn't say that. By referring to teaching mode I refer to work I've actually done on Workload and Pain in the field with pilots. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. We only used persons who had documented experience of extreme pain in the past. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. In addition we validated that by giving them some samples of experience using electrical stimulation. The workload stuff was easier. We used simulators and actual task scenarios with different loads.

It all was actual experiment. All within standards.

...and I don't care how you particularly feel.

As for you untermensche it's pretty clear you don't know your hat from a saddle.

Frumder, the sad thing is you don't know how truly fucked up your view on this is.

You gave me a whole paragraph to justify (it seems) someone's sensation of pain:

We only used persons who had documented experience of extreme pain in the past. We got waivers from those who agreed to participate. In addition we validated that by giving them some samples of experience using electrical stimulation. The workload stuff was easier. We used simulators and actual task scenarios with different loads.

Is there something wrong with you? Is there something fundamentally missing in your make-up?

Do you really think that there needs to be some scientific study performed before someone's testimony of pain is justified?

Please answer the question.

Oh, and by the way, I don't give two shits about how you feel either.

 

[WAB]

*deleted* 2nd fucking time

 

[WAB]

*deleted* - Mods please delete these two last posts! I don't want to wreck the continuity of the thread

 

[fromderinside]

Wow two shits. Then two deletes. On a roll?

Uh, yeah to respond properly to your attempt at snide, it's more reliable to show relationships among a population of observers than it is to relate one's private interpretation of pain or workload or love or arousal etc. It's something psychometricians do as a profession besides recording political preferences. It's also part of psychophysics. Lesson complete!

 

[fromderinside]

Untermesnshe

"Pain is a subjective experience."

Wow. Really? So you think it's not possible to quantify subjective experience?

Did any of your instructors learn at the foot of Nafe or Kenshalo, or Mountcastle?

Dan Kenshalo provided computer access, use, and doctoral guidance and support for my dissertation on the psychophysics of human processing of moving acoustic stimuli. A friend and associate of mine recorded cortical cells responsive to noxious skin stimulation as dissertation topic under Kenshalo.

Be that as it may it is relevant to understand whether experience is shared which is what tracking responses from random populations of observers is all about.

Ah, but we wander from the the thread which is whether there is free will or free choice. Establishing a material basis for conversation of experiences seem to be an important thing to do.

 

[DBT]

I have told you that is not needed to make philosophical claims.

I do not need to know how the mind has autonomy to know a truth claim from a mind that is not autonomous is meaningless.

If some entity is forced to think something is true as opposed to freely concluding it is true then what it thinks is true is meaningless.

What gives value to anything a human thinks is true is the freedom to use evidence or argument to make truth conclusions.



When presented with rational arguments you simply don't respond.

You seem to think rational arguments in a philosophy forum have no place.

Either you can't respond or with your will decide not to.

Reading everything you write leads me to freely conclude you can't.

we have seen the same signatures of consciousness: physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change when a person reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit or a sound).

Seeing cells respond is a million miles from knowing what the cells are doing and how consciousness is arising from it.

You have your religion.

Same old Mantra. Nothing changes. Reject all research, evidence, analysis by experts in their field, only to assert and proclaim your belief, your faith.

Meanwhile:

Neuroscience, quantum indeterminism and the Cartesian soul

Clarke first outlines the dualism of Rene Descartes, who famously believed in an immaterial human soul separate from the brain, and responsible for rational thought. But this implied that an immaterial soul could break the laws of physics, and affect some physical processes in the brain, in order to control our actions. Even in the 17th century, this was regarded as a bit much:

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (oldest daughter of King James VI), wrote: “…it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than to concede the capacity to move a body and to be moved by it to an immaterial thing.”

But the 20th century gave new life to dualism. Quantum theory taught that physics is non-deterministic on the smallest scales; most famously, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we can’t know the exact properties of any particle for sure – only the probability of finding a certain kind of particle in a certain place.

Since then, a number of authors have argued that the soul interacts with the brain by altering the distribution of quantum states, in such a way that it alters brain function. Arguably, this would not be ‘breaking the laws of physics’ in an objectionable Cartesian way. Because, thanks to Heisenberg, there was always a chance that the system would have ended up the desired way all along.

But Clarke pours cold water on this hope:

We consider whether a fluctuation within the limits of Heisenbergian uncertainty could affect the presynaptic calcium concentration by permitting a chemical bond to be modified in an ion channel, as has been proposed…

Tinkering with presynaptic calcium channels is one of the main proposals for how souls could alter neuronal firing. However,

… even with the conservative value of a time uncertainty of 10 milliseconds, Heisenberg’s equation gives an energy uncertainty of approximately 5.2 x 10^-30 J, which is about 200,000 times too small to disrupt even a single Van der Waals interaction, the weakest kind of chemical bond.


In other words, even if the soul were only aiming to influence a calcium channel for 10 milliseconds, the bare minimum it would need to, it wouldn’t have nearly enough quantum ‘wiggle room’ to make a difference (the longer the time, the less room.)

Some have argued that even tiny quantum nudges could nonetheless control brain activity, because of the butterfly effect: a small change might lead, indirectly, to a big one, in the complex system of the brain.

However, Clarke squashes this idea too. He says that the brain is actually very good at not being influenced by tiny changes. It has to be, because thermal noise – the random movement of atoms, due to temperature – is constantly throwing up tiny changes, and this noise would drown out any plausible Heisenberg-based effects:[/I]


Thus, the thermal energy of the molecules is 9 orders of magnitude greater than the energy change that can be hidden by Heisenbergian uncertainty. But the functioning of neurons has to be resistant to thermal noise. And if the Heisenbergian uncertainty is amplified by chaos or in other ways, the far greater fluctuations due to thermal energy will presumably be amplified as well’’

 

[WAB]

Wow two shits. Then two deletes. On a roll?

Uh, yeah to respond properly to your attempt at snide, it's more reliable to show relationships among a population of observers than it is to relate one's private interpretation of pain or workload or love or arousal etc. It's something psychometricians do as a profession besides recording political preferences. It's also part of psychophysics. Lesson complete!

"Private interpretation of pain" is a wonderful expression. The only individual pain matters to is the person in pain. Everyone else, including scientists, can fuck off with their theories.

The best judge of pain is the individual who is feeling the pain. That is precisely why emergency rooms and hospitals take personal testimony of pain literally, and treat accordingly. If a patient says they are at a level 8, they are treated at a level eight.

The only exceptions are frequent flyers who go into the ER in the hope of getting opiates.

Your opinion of anyone's pain, is decidedly secondary to THAT person's pain. A scientist's interpretation of an individual's pain is decidedly secondary, and (in times, if not most of the time - my own belief is ALL of the time, labcoats be damned,) completely irrelevant to that person's pain.

We have had this discussion before, many years ago. I was WilliamB and a few other names.

If you actually think it's okay to NOT take seriously someone's testimony and experience of pain, then there is something missing in you. Something gravely important.

Of course we know that YOUR pain is real, and matters, as we've heard about it in plenty of posts. But no-one else's pain is real unless a team of labcoats and a slew of experiments decides it is?

Mind you, I have no problem at all with a scientific study of pain. What troubles me is that you seem to think the individual in pain doesn't really understand their pain, and/or is not qualified to express it. That is immoral and disgusting.

Please explain what your real ideas are with regard to pain, and be straightforward. Don't try to be cute or clever. I would be more than happy to apologize to you and say that I was wrong about you.

 

[fromderinside]

It's something psychometricians do as a profession besides recording political preferences. It's also part of psychophysics. Lesson complete!

"Private interpretation of pain" is a wonderful expression. ... What troubles me is you seem to think the individual in pain doesn't really understand their pain. That is immoral and disgusting.

It troubles me as well which is why I find it strange you don't understand is the first one cares about is oneself.

It's a major advance in human nature for the group to understand what is pain rather than let the individual drive that feeling any way they want. There will always be ones who engineer feelings to their own ends. It is critical humankind understand some things are universally felt and to be decisive in responding to those feelings. Leave pain to the individual and we get another Mengele driving society.

The lesson has been learned. No wringing of hand emotional pleas will ever again be alone to drive the selfish. We are great because we know we are individuals that must act as a group to be great.

Amazing we come to opposite conclusions isn't it. Personal testimony should never be upon which one decides her next action. That is the stuff from which despotism arises.

The balance shouldn't be turned over to the group because the group is presumed to know is how individual belief comes to power.

However, it is necessary for the group to know and each individual be aware everyone knows. What's sad is we having this conversation while we are living in a time where the personal is being used as a club the group to gain advantage.

 

[untermensche]

I have told you that is not needed to make philosophical claims.

I do not need to know how the mind has autonomy to know a truth claim from a mind that is not autonomous is meaningless.

If some entity is forced to think something is true as opposed to freely concluding it is true then what it thinks is true is meaningless.

What gives value to anything a human thinks is true is the freedom to use evidence or argument to make truth conclusions.



When presented with rational arguments you simply don't respond.

You seem to think rational arguments in a philosophy forum have no place.

Either you can't respond or with your will decide not to.

Reading everything you write leads me to freely conclude you can't.

we have seen the same signatures of consciousness: physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change when a person reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit or a sound).

Seeing cells respond is a million miles from knowing what the cells are doing and how consciousness is arising from it.

You have your religion.

Same old Mantra. Nothing changes. Reject all research, evidence, analysis by experts in their field, only to assert and proclaim your belief, your faith.

Meanwhile:

Neuroscience, quantum indeterminism and the Cartesian soul

Clarke first outlines the dualism of Rene Descartes, who famously believed in an immaterial human soul separate from the brain, and responsible for rational thought. But this implied that an immaterial soul could break the laws of physics, and affect some physical processes in the brain, in order to control our actions. Even in the 17th century, this was regarded as a bit much:

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (oldest daughter of King James VI), wrote: “…it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than to concede the capacity to move a body and to be moved by it to an immaterial thing.”

But the 20th century gave new life to dualism. Quantum theory taught that physics is non-deterministic on the smallest scales; most famously, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we can’t know the exact properties of any particle for sure – only the probability of finding a certain kind of particle in a certain place.

Since then, a number of authors have argued that the soul interacts with the brain by altering the distribution of quantum states, in such a way that it alters brain function. Arguably, this would not be ‘breaking the laws of physics’ in an objectionable Cartesian way. Because, thanks to Heisenberg, there was always a chance that the system would have ended up the desired way all along.

But Clarke pours cold water on this hope:

We consider whether a fluctuation within the limits of Heisenbergian uncertainty could affect the presynaptic calcium concentration by permitting a chemical bond to be modified in an ion channel, as has been proposed…

Tinkering with presynaptic calcium channels is one of the main proposals for how souls could alter neuronal firing. However,

… even with the conservative value of a time uncertainty of 10 milliseconds, Heisenberg’s equation gives an energy uncertainty of approximately 5.2 x 10^-30 J, which is about 200,000 times too small to disrupt even a single Van der Waals interaction, the weakest kind of chemical bond.


In other words, even if the soul were only aiming to influence a calcium channel for 10 milliseconds, the bare minimum it would need to, it wouldn’t have nearly enough quantum ‘wiggle room’ to make a difference (the longer the time, the less room.)

Some have argued that even tiny quantum nudges could nonetheless control brain activity, because of the butterfly effect: a small change might lead, indirectly, to a big one, in the complex system of the brain.

However, Clarke squashes this idea too. He says that the brain is actually very good at not being influenced by tiny changes. It has to be, because thermal noise – the random movement of atoms, due to temperature – is constantly throwing up tiny changes, and this noise would drown out any plausible Heisenberg-based effects:[/I]


Thus, the thermal energy of the molecules is 9 orders of magnitude greater than the energy change that can be hidden by Heisenbergian uncertainty. But the functioning of neurons has to be resistant to thermal noise. And if the Heisenbergian uncertainty is amplified by chaos or in other ways, the far greater fluctuations due to thermal energy will presumably be amplified as well’’

Nothing I say has anything to do with dualism.

A brain gives rise to some phenomena that can act in some way on the brain.

When we understand it, if we ever understand what a mind is, nothing will be miraculous.

Your criticism is on the level of a second grader.

 

[fromderinside]

Da da dada da, da da dida

Mind-body dualism https://www.britannica.com/topic/mind-body-dualism

Descartes developed a theory of mind as an immaterial, nonextended substance that engages in various activities or undergoes various states such as rational thought, imagining, feeling (sensation), and willing. Matter, or extended substance, conforms to the laws of physics in mechanistic fashion, with the important exception of the human body, which Descartes believed is causally affected by the human mind and which causally produces certain mental events. For example, willing the arm to be raised causes it to be raised, whereas being hit by a hammer on the finger causes the mind to feel pain. This part of Descartes’s dualistic theory, known as interactionism*, raises one of the chief problems faced by Descartes and his followers: the question of how this causal interaction is possible.

*^{_{Interactionism, in Cartesian philosophy and the philosophy of mind, those dualistic theories that hold that mind and body, though separate and distinct substances, causally interact. Interactionists assert that a mental event, as when John Doe wills to kick a brick wall, can be the cause of a physical action, his leg and foot moving into the wall. Conversely, the physical event of his foot hitting the wall can be the cause of the mental event of his feeling a sharp pain.}}

Please fee free to demonstrate where your position differs.

We second graders are all waiting with bated breath to be instructed by the neighbor's nasty little diaper wearer who has yet to learn to walk.


NOT.

 

[DBT]

Same old Mantra. Nothing changes. Reject all research, evidence, analysis by experts in their field, only to assert and proclaim your belief, your faith.

Meanwhile:

Neuroscience, quantum indeterminism and the Cartesian soul

Clarke first outlines the dualism of Rene Descartes, who famously believed in an immaterial human soul separate from the brain, and responsible for rational thought. But this implied that an immaterial soul could break the laws of physics, and affect some physical processes in the brain, in order to control our actions. Even in the 17th century, this was regarded as a bit much:

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (oldest daughter of King James VI), wrote: “…it would be easier for me to concede matter and extension to the soul, than to concede the capacity to move a body and to be moved by it to an immaterial thing.”

But the 20th century gave new life to dualism. Quantum theory taught that physics is non-deterministic on the smallest scales; most famously, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we can’t know the exact properties of any particle for sure – only the probability of finding a certain kind of particle in a certain place.

Since then, a number of authors have argued that the soul interacts with the brain by altering the distribution of quantum states, in such a way that it alters brain function. Arguably, this would not be ‘breaking the laws of physics’ in an objectionable Cartesian way. Because, thanks to Heisenberg, there was always a chance that the system would have ended up the desired way all along.

But Clarke pours cold water on this hope:

We consider whether a fluctuation within the limits of Heisenbergian uncertainty could affect the presynaptic calcium concentration by permitting a chemical bond to be modified in an ion channel, as has been proposed…

Tinkering with presynaptic calcium channels is one of the main proposals for how souls could alter neuronal firing. However,

… even with the conservative value of a time uncertainty of 10 milliseconds, Heisenberg’s equation gives an energy uncertainty of approximately 5.2 x 10^-30 J, which is about 200,000 times too small to disrupt even a single Van der Waals interaction, the weakest kind of chemical bond.


In other words, even if the soul were only aiming to influence a calcium channel for 10 milliseconds, the bare minimum it would need to, it wouldn’t have nearly enough quantum ‘wiggle room’ to make a difference (the longer the time, the less room.)

Some have argued that even tiny quantum nudges could nonetheless control brain activity, because of the butterfly effect: a small change might lead, indirectly, to a big one, in the complex system of the brain.

However, Clarke squashes this idea too. He says that the brain is actually very good at not being influenced by tiny changes. It has to be, because thermal noise – the random movement of atoms, due to temperature – is constantly throwing up tiny changes, and this noise would drown out any plausible Heisenberg-based effects:[/I]


Thus, the thermal energy of the molecules is 9 orders of magnitude greater than the energy change that can be hidden by Heisenbergian uncertainty. But the functioning of neurons has to be resistant to thermal noise. And if the Heisenbergian uncertainty is amplified by chaos or in other ways, the far greater fluctuations due to thermal energy will presumably be amplified as well’’

Nothing I say has anything to do with dualism.

A brain gives rise to some phenomena that can act in some way on the brain.

When we understand it, if we ever understand what a mind is, nothing will be miraculous.

Your criticism is on the level of a second grader.

You stated that the mind is independent from the brain.

That is dualism.