Human Instinct and Free Will

[bilby]

Read my post. There is NO evidence of quantum entanglement or uncertainty impinging on the macro world. The gulf between the macro world and the QM world is too wide. There is no evidence of quantum effects disturbing information leading to Standard Theory which is why it is so robust. If a new math is required for one it is required for the other to describe why things are different there. As for drops exploding, the exploding particles follow standard theory predictions.

They are going to try to teleport a microorganism, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0990-x . Why not?

Interesting. I bet they can do it too, if they throw enough time and money at the attempt.

Maybe this happens naturally.

And maybe whirlwinds blowing through junkyards occasionally assemble fully operational Jumbo Jets.

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe this happens naturally.

And maybe whirlwinds blowing through junkyards occasionally assemble fully operational Jumbo Jets.

...

 

[Juma]

So how do you think we can know about the past? There is no arrangement of particles that gives us a notion of the past.

That is not "the hard problem."

Thinking per se is not "the hard problem".

Memory per se is not "the hard problem."

Have you ever heard of computer memory?

The notion of "left traces" is no "hard problem". It is obvious.

The hard problem is the actual experience of the apparent inner theater.

 

[ryan]

So how do you think we can know about the past? There is no arrangement of particles that gives us a notion of the past.

That is not "the hard problem."

Thinking per se is not "the hard problem".

Memory per se is not "the hard problem."

Have you ever heard of computer memory?

The notion of "left traces" is no "hard problem". It is obvious.

The hard problem is the actual experience of the apparent inner theater.

It's more like an aspect of the "Hard Problem".

"More unified and densely integrated representation of reality. Conscious experience presents us with a world of objects independently existing in space and time. Those objects are typically present to us in a multi-modal fashion that involves the integration of information from various sensory channels as well as from background knowledge and memory. Conscious experience presents us not with isolated properties or features but with objects and events situated in an ongoing independent world, and it does so by embodying in its experiential organization and dynamics the dense network of relations and interconnections that collectively constitute the meaningful structure of a world of objects (Kant 1787, Husserl 1913, Campbell 1997)."

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Think about it; memory is just another object. Why does it carry this property that is so different from any of the properties that each particle has? It represents the past; what the hell does that have to do with its components? It is part of the hard problem of the consciousness. Entanglement has a nice solution.

 

[bigfield]

I am talking about the e-mail. I mentioned that his e-mail is about part of the brain being a quantum computer and that he didn't mean that the brain had parts of a quantum computer.

His exact wording was "the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins." And as Fisher's article shows, those entangled phosphate ions can only produce a fraction of the functionality of a quantum computer.

You continue to demonstrate confirmation bias by twisting his meaning to suit your desired conclusion.

Regardless, my argument with DBT is and only ever has been that science has not ruled the possibility that I could have done otherwise (free will).

You presented Wang et al and Fisher as evidence in support of your position on free will. Those articles do not support your position.

I have yet to read anything that makes me believe otherwise, especially since there seems to be mechanisms that may allow me to have done otherwise. My only argument is not that there is free will, but free will is still possible.

You have no evidence to support that argument.

 

[DBT]

Science does not support quantum consciousness for the reasons already explained: the brain is too hot and wet to allow superposition at any scale except perhaps at synaptic junctions and microtubules, but this is not enough to call the brain a quantum processor or define consciousness as quantum consciousness.

This last part is not backed up by anything. You just saying this, which opposes recent science articles.

That's not true. It has been pointed out that superposition decoherance rate is too fast to allow quantum computing. The evidence supports the proposition that the brain is a classical information processing system, albeit with some degree of quantum involvement at synaptic clefts and microtubules, but these do not actually processes information and select from options, but facilitate the activity of neural connectivity.

You are missing the point.

Not me. You.

The reason why you can jump from holism to reductionism and back to holism is because science has not yet been able to explain holistic phenomena. But we absolutely need to explain it in order for any meaning of anything to exist. Entanglement can do this.

I'm not the one jumping. I am simply responding to your claims by pointing out the problems and fallacies...such as misrepresentation of the research and evidence.

Think about it; how is it that we can "know" about multiple particles (strings or whatever the basic elements of the universe are)?

We are not aware of superposition or entanglement. These are all discoveries made through experimentation and math.

We are not aware of individual wave/particles within the brain. We are only aware of what the brain makes aware in the form of a mental representation of information.

The point of all of this is that we need quantum processing for this to be true. Yes there is going to be randomness in some of the more intricate processes, but so what. It's better than being a ghost in a machine that can only observe without any say in what happens or what it does.

It is not 'quantum' or superposition or entanglement that do information processing (facilitation at best). It is the neurons, their connections, support cells and structures of a functional brain that perform this task.

As I've pointed out numerous time, a simple mechanical failure of synaptic connectivity disrupts the ability to recognise or make decisions. Yet the quantum elements of microtubules, etc, are still present.

Hence, you have no case to argue.

 

[Juma]

Think about it; memory is just another object. Why does it carry this property that is so different from any of the properties that each particle has? It represents the past; what the hell does that have to do with its components? It is part of the hard problem of the consciousness. Entanglement has a nice solution.

Sigh. It has nothing to do with components. It has everything to do with the PROCESS that interacts with it.

 

[ryan]

His exact wording was "the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins." And as Fisher's article shows, those entangled phosphate ions can only produce a fraction of the functionality of a quantum computer.

How do you not think his quote means that part of the brain is a quantum computer?

You have no evidence to support that argument.

There is evidence suggesting that it's possible.

 

[ryan]

This last part is not backed up by anything. You just saying this, which opposes recent science articles.

That's not true. It has been pointed out that superposition decoherance rate is too fast to allow quantum computing. The evidence supports the proposition that the brain is a classical information processing system, albeit with some degree of quantum involvement at synaptic clefts and microtubules, but these do not actually processes information and select from options, but facilitate the activity of neural connectivity.

You have to think about the nature of quantum computers. A quantum computer is a single unit even if it is spread out over the entire universe. It does not matter what is between its parts the same way it would matter for a classical computer. So part of a quantum computer could be in your closet another part could be at you office and another part could be under ground where no classical wireless communication is possible. There isn't even a delay from the light speed communication.

The reason why you can jump from holism to reductionism and back to holism is because science has not yet been able to explain holistic phenomena. But we absolutely need to explain it in order for any meaning of anything to exist. Entanglement can do this.

I'm not the one jumping. I am simply responding to your claims by pointing out the problems and fallacies...such as misrepresentation of the research and evidence.

I don't think you even realise what you are doing. You don't seem to understand the nature of the problems in understanding the consciousness. But I do think that you sense something is wrong when you switch from reductionism to holism and back again.

Think about it; how is it that we can "know" about multiple particles (strings or whatever the basic elements of the universe are)?

We are not aware of superposition or entanglement.

Don't you think that the reason for this is because we would be the superposition and the entanglement? Our mental structure would be just that while giving us an inherently true intuition of properties of the universe such as the past, future, whole objects, spaces, etc.

The point of all of this is that we need quantum processing for this to be true. Yes there is going to be randomness in some of the more intricate processes, but so what. It's better than being a ghost in a machine that can only observe without any say in what happens or what it does.

It is not 'quantum' or superposition or entanglement that do information processing (facilitation at best). It is the neurons, their connections, support cells and structures of a functional brain that perform this task.

As I've pointed out numerous time, a simple mechanical failure of synaptic connectivity disrupts the ability to recognise or make decisions. Yet the quantum elements of microtubules, etc, are still present.

Refer to the top of this post about how quantum computers can operate.

 

[ryan]

Think about it; memory is just another object. Why does it carry this property that is so different from any of the properties that each particle has? It represents the past; what the hell does that have to do with its components? It is part of the hard problem of the consciousness. Entanglement has a nice solution.

Sigh. It has nothing to do with components. It has everything to do with the PROCESS that interacts with it.

Process is something we outlined in a universe of scattered particles. The mental concept of a process is the problem. How can a bunch of disconnected particles know about a whole process? Face it, entanglement is the only way that doesn't make the consciousness look like a ghost in the brain.

 

[Juma]

Sigh. It has nothing to do with components. It has everything to do with the PROCESS that interacts with it.

Process is something we outlined in a universe of scattered particles. The mental concept of a process is the problem. How can a bunch of disconnected particles know about a whole process?

They doesnt. The process/system knows. Or rather: displays the behavior "knowledge". Not its parts.

Face it, entanglement is the only way that doesn't make the consciousness look like a ghost in the brain.

Entanglement doesnt help you at all. It is your deus ex machina, your god of the gaps.

 

[skepticalbip]

Face it, entanglement is the only way that doesn't make the consciousness look like a ghost in the brain.

Entanglement doesnt help you at all. It is your deus ex machina, your god of the gaps.

But...but...but the words "quantum", "nonlocality", "entanglement", etc. are magic words that PROVE anything that anyone wishes to be true. Have you never read anything by Deepak Chopra?

 

[ryan]

Process is something we outlined in a universe of scattered particles. The mental concept of a process is the problem. How can a bunch of disconnected particles know about a whole process?

They doesnt. The process/system knows. Or rather: displays the behavior "knowledge". Not its parts.

But it still needs to know. And how does a display unify in the mind anyways? Why do we get a display and not some other meaningless collection of particles?

Face it, entanglement is the only way that doesn't make the consciousness look like a ghost in the brain.

Entanglement doesnt help you at all. It is your deus ex machina, your god of the gaps.

Except that my God in the gaps is a natural phenomenon of the gap.

 

[ryan]

Entanglement doesnt help you at all. It is your deus ex machina, your god of the gaps.

But...but...but the words "quantum", "nonlocality", "entanglement", etc. are magic words that PROVE anything that anyone wishes to be true. Have you never read anything by Deepak Chopra?

Yeah, totally, big words = magic. Anyone talking about QM must be a Deepak follower.

 

[skepticalbip]

But...but...but the words "quantum", "nonlocality", "entanglement", etc. are magic words that PROVE anything that anyone wishes to be true. Have you never read anything by Deepak Chopra?

Yeah, totally, big words = magic. Anyone talking about QM must be a Deepak follower.

Sorry. They are not big words and they are quite meaningful when used appropriately. However, they are often used as "MAGIC WORDS" (nonsense) by many.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, totally, big words = magic. Anyone talking about QM must be a Deepak follower.

Sorry. They are not big words and they are quite meaningful when used appropriately. However, they are often used as "MAGIC WORDS" (nonsense) by many.

...

 

[fromderinside]

...

 

[ryan]

...

 

[bigfield]

His exact wording was "the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins." And as Fisher's article shows, those entangled phosphate ions can only produce a fraction of the functionality of a quantum computer.

How do you not think his quote means that part of the brain is a quantum computer?

Are you serious? It's right there in my post that you've quoted:

His exact wording was "the possibility that the brain is (in part) a quantum computer, operating coherently on entangled phosphorus nuclear spins." And as Fisher's article shows, those entangled phosphate ions can only produce a fraction of the functionality of a quantum computer.

You have no evidence to support that argument.

There is evidence suggesting that it's possible.

The quantum cognition research by Wang, Busemeyer and other does not support your hypothesis.

Fisher's article does not support your hypothesis.

There is no evidence to support your position.

 

[Juma]

They doesnt. The process/system knows. Or rather: displays the behavior "knowledge". Not its parts.

But it still needs to know. And how does a display unify in the mind anyways? Why do we get a display and not some other meaningless collection of particles?.

Seems that you misread my post. Let me reformulate it:

Knowledge is a property of the entire system not its parts. The process/system has the behavior "knowledge". The particles are just parts of the system, they doesnt have any knowledge.