Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

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:

So your explanation of his quote is just to essentially say that you are right??? Explain how you think the "(in part)" part refers to the quantum computer and not the brain. Before you do, Oxford has "the cause of the illness is at least in part psychological" as an example similar to ours.

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.

Well if multiple neurons fire according to random collapses of entangled molecules, then obviously some decisions are random.

 

[ryan]

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.

If we zoomed into a process in the brain that represents knowledge, we won't find this knowledge. We will find a bunch of particles. We will only find the parts. Do you want a ghost in the machine or do you want entanglement where a new and irreducible object emerges due to entanglement.

 

[bilby]

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

So your explanation of his quote is just to essentially say that you are right??? Explain how you think the "(in part)" part refers to the quantum computer and not the brain. Before you do, Oxford has "the cause of the illness is at least in part psychological" as an example similar to ours.

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.

Well if multiple neurons fire according to random collapses of entangled molecules, then obviously some decisions are random.

Oh FFS. Random decisions are not free will.

They are free. But not will.

If decisions were random, you would have insanity.

 

[bigfield]

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

So your explanation of his quote is just to essentially say that you are right??? Explain how you think the "(in part)" part refers to the quantum computer and not the brain.Before you do, Oxford has "the cause of the illness is at least in part psychological" is an example.

I already explained myself:

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.

Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, therefore your interpretation, that there is an entire quantum computer in the brain, must be incorrect.

If you don't like that fact that Fisher's grammar is misleading, then send him another email and say so.

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.

Well if multiple neurons fire according to random collapses of entangled molecules, then obviously some decisions are random.

Fisher's mechanism does not entail the "random collapses of entangled molecules": The mechanism's trigger is not random at all; the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons.

There is no evidence to support your position, so please stop pretending otherwise.

 

[ryan]

So your explanation of his quote is just to essentially say that you are right??? Explain how you think the "(in part)" part refers to the quantum computer and not the brain.Before you do, Oxford has "the cause of the illness is at least in part psychological" is an example.

I already explained myself:

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.

Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, therefore your interpretation, that there is an entire quantum computer in the brain, must be incorrect.

Nice truism: you are wrong; therefor, you are wrong.

If you don't like that fact that Fisher's grammar is misleading, then send him another email and say so.

And god forbid someone else actually tries to think outside of himself.

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.

Well if multiple neurons fire according to random collapses of entangled molecules, then obviously some decisions are random.

Fisher's mechanism does not entail the "random collapses of entangled molecules": The mechanism's trigger is not random at all; the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons.

I think you have it ass backwards, from the first page of Mathew's paper,

"Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner
molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further
neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic
neuron firing.".

 

[DBT]

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.

You don't need to tell me that. I've been pointing out all along why the brain is not a quantum computer and why the studies you have used do not support that claim, as have several other posters (and very well done I might add).

And if for the sake of argument we assume that the brain is a quantum computer, this does not help to establish your version of free will, the underlying conditions are not subject to conscious will or control, consciousness has no access to information processing, neural architecture, information exchange, pattern recognition, memory function, sensory inputs, connectivity, being the determinants of decision making.....the parts relevant to interaction with the external world being represented in conscious form.

Memory failure destroying decision making ability regardless of whether the brain is or is not a quantum information processor.

Which means you have no case, whether you accept this, or not.

 

[bigfield]

I already explained myself:

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.

Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, therefore your interpretation, that there is an entire quantum computer in the brain, must be incorrect.

Nice truism: you are wrong; therefor, you are wrong.

That's ridiculous. It's clear that you don't understand why Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, despite claiming to have read the article multiple times.

If you don't like that fact that Fisher's grammar is misleading, then send him another email and say so.

And god forbid someone else actually tries to think outside of himself.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

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.

Well if multiple neurons fire according to random collapses of entangled molecules, then obviously some decisions are random.

Fisher's mechanism does not entail the "random collapses of entangled molecules": The mechanism's trigger is not random at all; the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons.

I think you have it ass backwards, from the first page of Mathew's paper,

"Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner
molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further
neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic
neuron firing.".

Now you have returned to quote-mining. I addressed this in a previous post, which also shows that I don't have it "ass backwards" and that you simply don't comprehend the article.

But then he also says this on page 600,

"The chemical binding
and subsequent melting of two Posner molecules inside a given neuron would then influence the
probability of Posner molecules binding and melting in other neurons. This could lead to non-local
quantum correlations in the glutamate release and postsynaptic firing across multiple neurons."

Yes, that is how the connection works. And if you read the context, it's clear that a large number of Posner molecules need to be triggered in concert in order to have a significant effect, as a single pair of Posner molecules releases an insignificant amount of Calcium ions. As Fisher explains, this concerted melting occurs when the neuron fires.

So Fisher's proposed mechanism works like this:
1. Pyrophosphatase enaymes build a wireless connection between two neurons using by generating entangled phosphate ion pairs that are stored in separate Posner molecules and taken to different neurons.
2. The first neuron fires.
3. The Posner molecules in the first neuron melt, causing the Posner molecules in the second neuron to melt, releasing Ca ions.
4. The second neuron fires due to the release of the Ca ions.

The neural activity here is controlled by relatively large-scale processes:
1. Large numbers of entangled pairs of phosphate ions are produced and stored in neurons.
2. The firing of the first neuron is triggered by plain old neural activity, not quantum effects.
3. Large numbers of Posner molecules much melt and be melted in order to trigger a reaction in the second neuron.

The outcome of a wavefunction collapse in a single phosphate ion is insignificant.

As you can read, the process is not random; the mechanism is triggered by the firing of the first neuron. The excerpt you quoted out of context refers to the second neuron.

 

[ryan]

You have to think about the nature of quantum computers.

You don't need to tell me that. I've been pointing out all along why the brain is not a quantum computer and why the studies you have used do not support that claim, as have several other posters (and very well done I might add).

And if for the sake of argument we assume that the brain is a quantum computer, this does not help to establish your version of free will, the underlying conditions are not subject to conscious will or control, consciousness has no access to information processing, neural architecture, information exchange, pattern recognition, memory function, sensory inputs, connectivity, being the determinants of decision making.....the parts relevant to interaction with the external world being represented in conscious form.

Memory failure destroying decision making ability regardless of whether the brain is or is not a quantum information processor.

I have responded to these issues of yours possibly 100 times.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[ryan]

I already explained myself:

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.

Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, therefore your interpretation, that there is an entire quantum computer in the brain, must be incorrect.

Nice truism: you are wrong; therefor, you are wrong.

That's ridiculous. It's clear that you don't understand why Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, despite claiming to have read the article multiple times.

Parts of the brain are quantum computers - parts that happen to be the most relevant parts of the brain when it comes to decision making.

If you don't like that fact that Fisher's grammar is misleading, then send him another email and say so.

And god forbid someone else actually tries to think outside of himself.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

Think harder about what I meant. It has to do with people using their own knowledge to try to rationalise their argument. It doesn't work as we can clearly see how many references need to be made in any given scientific paper.

Fisher's mechanism does not entail the "random collapses of entangled molecules": The mechanism's trigger is not random at all; the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons.

Speaking of thinking outside yourself, would you enlighten me with an actual quote from Fisher's paper that supports your claim that I put in bold? I have trust issues with random people on the internet just telling me how something is; surely you can understand my skepticism.

I think you have it ass backwards, from the first page of Mathew's paper,

"Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner
molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further
neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic
neuron firing.".

Now you have returned to quote-mining. I addressed this in a previous post, which also shows that I don't have it "ass backwards" and that you simply don't comprehend the article.

Is quote mining really an issue when we know the source and can easily read the context as I expect you would?

But then he also says this on page 600,

"The chemical binding
and subsequent melting of two Posner molecules inside a given neuron would then influence the
probability of Posner molecules binding and melting in other neurons. This could lead to non-local
quantum correlations in the glutamate release and postsynaptic firing across multiple neurons."

Yes, that is how the connection works. And if you read the context, it's clear that a large number of Posner molecules need to be triggered in concert in order to have a significant effect, as a single pair of Posner molecules releases an insignificant amount of Calcium ions. As Fisher explains, this concerted melting occurs when the neuron fires.

So Fisher's proposed mechanism works like this:
1. Pyrophosphatase enaymes build a wireless connection between two neurons using by generating entangled phosphate ion pairs that are stored in separate Posner molecules and taken to different neurons.
2. The first neuron fires.
3. The Posner molecules in the first neuron melt, causing the Posner molecules in the second neuron to melt, releasing Ca ions.
4. The second neuron fires due to the release of the Ca ions.

The neural activity here is controlled by relatively large-scale processes:
1. Large numbers of entangled pairs of phosphate ions are produced and stored in neurons.
2. The firing of the first neuron is triggered by plain old neural activity, not quantum effects.
3. Large numbers of Posner molecules much melt and be melted in order to trigger a reaction in the second neuron.

The outcome of a wavefunction collapse in a single phosphate ion is insignificant.

As you can read, the process is not random; the mechanism is triggered by the firing of the first neuron. The excerpt you quoted out of context refers to the second neuron.

I don't think you understand this part of the paper.

 

[Juma]

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.

If we zoomed into a process in the brain that represents knowledge, we won't find this knowledge. We will find a bunch of particles. We will only find the parts.

Good that you agree on this.

Do you want a ghost in the machine or do you want entanglement where a new and irreducible object emerges due to entanglement.

False dicotomy. We have a complex system of processes in our brain. The total behaviour of this system is our mind.
No ghost needed and no entaglement observed or even needed.

 

[DBT]

You don't need to tell me that. I've been pointing out all along why the brain is not a quantum computer and why the studies you have used do not support that claim, as have several other posters (and very well done I might add).

And if for the sake of argument we assume that the brain is a quantum computer, this does not help to establish your version of free will, the underlying conditions are not subject to conscious will or control, consciousness has no access to information processing, neural architecture, information exchange, pattern recognition, memory function, sensory inputs, connectivity, being the determinants of decision making.....the parts relevant to interaction with the external world being represented in conscious form.

Memory failure destroying decision making ability regardless of whether the brain is or is not a quantum information processor.

I have responded to these issues of yours possibly 100 times.

Responded...yes, you have. But never actually addressing a single point.

 

[ryan]

If we zoomed into a process in the brain that represents knowledge, we won't find this knowledge. We will find a bunch of particles. We will only find the parts.

Good that you agree on this.

Do you want a ghost in the machine or do you want entanglement where a new and irreducible object emerges due to entanglement.

False dicotomy. We have a complex system of processes in our brain. The total behaviour of this system is our mind.
No ghost needed and no entaglement observed or even needed.

You are just ignoring the problem of an irreducible mind. If science had to explain it today, what other option would they have than entanglement?

- - - Updated - - -

I have responded to these issues of yours possibly 100 times.

Responded...yes, you have. But never actually addressing a single point.

I tried many times, but you either just change the topic or say the same thing over again.

 

[Juma]

Good that you agree on this.

Do you want a ghost in the machine or do you want entanglement where a new and irreducible object emerges due to entanglement.

False dicotomy. We have a complex system of processes in our brain. The total behaviour of this system is our mind.
No ghost needed and no entaglement observed or even needed.

You are just ignoring the problem of an irreducible mind.

The mind is not irreducible.
The evidens from people with brain damage suggest the opposite. The mind consists of many functions that can be damaged or removed totally.

If science had to explain it today, what other option would they have than entanglement?

Science say thay we have some knowledge of which parts of the brain that are responsible for some of the features of the mind and something about how the centras work and interacts with other parts of the brain.

Entanglement really doesnt come in to it at all.

 

[bigfield]

That's ridiculous. It's clear that you don't understand why Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, despite claiming to have read the article multiple times.

Parts of the brain are quantum computers - parts that happen to be the most relevant parts of the brain when it comes to decision making.

Not only do you have no evidence to support this claim, but the existing evidence shows that your claim cannot be true.

Firstly, the moist, wet environment of the brain generally prevents quantum entanglement; Fisher's mechanism is a rare exception. Secondly, Fisher's mechanism cannot produce a quantum computer, because the only part of a quantum computer that his mechanism can produce is the ability to store qubits.

If you don't like that fact that Fisher's grammar is misleading, then send him another email and say so.

And god forbid someone else actually tries to think outside of himself.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

Think harder about what I meant. It has to do with people using their own knowledge to try to rationalise their argument. It doesn't work as we can clearly see how many references need to be made in any given scientific paper.

I have based my argument on the sources that you and others have presented; you haven't even been able to comprehend your own sources.

Fisher's mechanism does not entail the "random collapses of entangled molecules": The mechanism's trigger is not random at all; the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons.

Speaking of thinking outside yourself, would you enlighten me with an actual quote from Fisher's paper that supports your claim that I put in bold? I have trust issues with random people on the internet just telling me how something is; surely you can understand my skepticism.

See section 7, "Quantum processing with neurons"

And it looks like I've made a mistake: the quantum measurements are triggered by the incoming action potential rather than the firing of the first neuron, therefore I need to correct my previous description of the process:

1. Pyrophosphatase enzymes build a wireless connection between two neurons using by generating entangled phosphate ion pairs that are stored in separate Posner molecules and taken to different neurons.
2. The first neuron fires. The first neuron receives an impulse.
3. The Posner molecules in the first neuron melt, causing the Posner molecules in the second neuron to melt, releasing Ca ions.
4. The second neuron fires due to the release of the Ca ions.

So I was incorrect to say that "the quantum measurements are triggered by the firing of neurons"; the quantum measurements are triggered by incoming nerve impulses.

 

[DBT]

Bigfield, It's not really a mistake, it is clear that a neuron fires in response to input. There's hardly a need to state it.

 

[DBT]

I tried many times, but you either just change the topic or say the same thing over again.

No, that's what you do.

Show one example where you have actually addressed memory function as a key element that determines how decisions are made and which decisions are likely to be made?

It is you is avoiding the problems I have been pointing out by switching the focus of attention each and every time I raise these problems.

You say you have responded, which is true, but always by switching focus. Never actually addressing the difficulties I raise.

 

[bigfield]

Bigfield, It's not really a mistake, it is clear that a neuron fires in response to input. There's hardly a need to state it.

The Posner molecules melt before the synapse fires, not as a result of it. The melting of the Posner molecules and the release of calcium ions into the cytoplasm occurs before the synapse fires in both the primary neuron and in any neurons it is connected to via entanglement. I had it the other way round, which doesn't make any sense.

Of course, you're correct that the neuron still fires in response to input; it is neither random not quantum probabilistic.

 

[fromderinside]

So, in effect, another case where postulated quantum activity results in observed deterministic effect.

Who'da thunk. Time scale is a very difficult issue to wrap one's mind around when both time scales are clashed together by speculation. The point is the Quantum effect activity occur on time scales 1x10^{-30 or so} seconds and neural activity takes place on millisecond time scales.

/sheesh

 

[ryan]

Good that you agree on this.

Do you want a ghost in the machine or do you want entanglement where a new and irreducible object emerges due to entanglement.

False dicotomy. We have a complex system of processes in our brain. The total behaviour of this system is our mind.
No ghost needed and no entaglement observed or even needed.

You are just ignoring the problem of an irreducible mind.

The mind is not irreducible.

Imagine you have 2 apples on your desk. And let's say that the apples are put out in such a way that your mind only observes one apple at a time. Without inherently connected particles (entanglement) composing your mind, you should only observe one apple then observe the other with no intermediary memory inbetween. Your consciousness would only know about one thing at a time. But instead, the observation must be a singular/whole and instantaneous notion of multiple objects. Without entanglement, these 2 observations are not connected to each other in any way, which includes the intermediate memory between seeing the two apples.

But the reality is - if we can make an ontologically realistic assumption - that we know of two apples existing and not just one apple at a time. There is an inherently whole meaning of 2 objects existing.

The only way this makes sense to me scientifically is with entanglement where you are physically entangled with the observation of the pieces that make up the thought of 2 objects.

This also explains other metaphysical mysteries like aboutness. Our consciousness could be entangled with what we are actually observing. This would also explain how we can understand concepts like space and time.