Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

... nothing indicates that it is being solved by entaglement.

Well that's what you say.

Read,

"The cognitive binding problem is a central question in the study of consciousness: how
does the brain synthesize its modal and submodal processing systems to generate a
unity of conscious experience? This essay considers several solutions to the binding
problem, as well as their shortcomings. In particular, the current theory of neural
synchronization as the basis for binding and consciousness is explored in its relationship
to the relativity of simultaneity. This discussion of cognitive binding and simultaneity in
the brain incorporates the philosophy of Kant, notably the principles of the
transcendental unity of apperception and the transcendental aesthetic found in his
Critique of Pure Reason. This leads to a more general consideration of consciousness
and time, and explores the possibility of non-temporal theories of consciousness. The
emerging field of quantum neurodynamics is discussed in this context, and its
remarkable relationship to Kant is elucidated. Finally, the relevance of KantÊs
philosophy to cognitive binding is used as a basis for the discussion of a
neurophilosophical method in the investigation of consciousness."

and later in the paper,

"The quantum theory of the brain is as yet hypothetical and theoretical, with no
empirical confirmation. It is of interest, however, to examine how quantum neurodynamics
explains cognitive binding and unity of consciousness. First, because it is a theory that views
the brain as a quantum unity in itself, it eliminates the problem a priori. In short, if there
are no spatially discrete information processors, then there is no binding problem. Binding
ceases to be a difficulty for the brain to solve a posteriori , but simply follows from the
quantum structure, i.e. the quantum unity, of the brain. This unity, however, transcends the
mere interconnectedness of microtubules and other brain proteins. Quantum unity also
implies quantum non-locality, in which entangled particles can influence one another
instaneously."

from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.737.8147&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Here is support for Hameroff's and Penrose's ORCH OR Theory

"Quantum states in dendrites and soma of a particular neuron could
entangle with microtubules in the dendritic tree of that neuron, and also
in neighboring neurons via dendritic–dendritic (or dendritic–interneuron–
dendritic) gap junctions, enabling quantum entanglement of superposed
microtubule tubulins among many neurons (Fig. 1). This allows unity and
binding of conscious content, and a large EG which reaches threshold (by
τ ≈ ℏ/EG) quickly, such as at end-integration in EEG-relevant periods of
time, e.g., τ = 0.5 s to τ = 10−2 s."

from http://consciousness.arizona.edu/do...ReviewofOrchOR2016b2237_Ch-14_Revised-2-3.pdf

No, neither of theSe texts provide any support for that conciousness is entanglement. They are nothing but advanced wordsalads. There is really nothing else than "entanglement is sexy and I love it".

Penrose is deluded. He still says totally bonkers things as "As shown by Gödel’s theorem, Penrose (1989, 1994) described how the mental quality of “understanding” cannot be encapsulated by any computational system and must derive from some “non-computable” effect. ".

No. There is real support for the "entanglement" delusion.

 

[DBT]

The idea's of Penrose, et al, regarding the nature of [quantum] consciousness is not generally taken seriously, except by a minority of 'quantum consciousness' enthusiasts.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Penrose, et al, are right and that consciousness does indeed depend on - ''biologically “orchestrated” coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity'' - this process is still not under conscious control or regulation by will. Consciousness is still remains whatever the brain is doing regardless of quantum mechanisms or classical mechanisms.

If the system of information processing breaks down, be it quantum or classical, this is reflected in conscious experience and no power of the will can alter the underlying conditions.

 

[ryan]

Well that's what you say.

Read,

"The cognitive binding problem is a central question in the study of consciousness: how
does the brain synthesize its modal and submodal processing systems to generate a
unity of conscious experience? This essay considers several solutions to the binding
problem, as well as their shortcomings. In particular, the current theory of neural
synchronization as the basis for binding and consciousness is explored in its relationship
to the relativity of simultaneity. This discussion of cognitive binding and simultaneity in
the brain incorporates the philosophy of Kant, notably the principles of the
transcendental unity of apperception and the transcendental aesthetic found in his
Critique of Pure Reason. This leads to a more general consideration of consciousness
and time, and explores the possibility of non-temporal theories of consciousness. The
emerging field of quantum neurodynamics is discussed in this context, and its
remarkable relationship to Kant is elucidated. Finally, the relevance of KantÊs
philosophy to cognitive binding is used as a basis for the discussion of a
neurophilosophical method in the investigation of consciousness."

and later in the paper,

"The quantum theory of the brain is as yet hypothetical and theoretical, with no
empirical confirmation. It is of interest, however, to examine how quantum neurodynamics
explains cognitive binding and unity of consciousness. First, because it is a theory that views
the brain as a quantum unity in itself, it eliminates the problem a priori. In short, if there
are no spatially discrete information processors, then there is no binding problem. Binding
ceases to be a difficulty for the brain to solve a posteriori , but simply follows from the
quantum structure, i.e. the quantum unity, of the brain. This unity, however, transcends the
mere interconnectedness of microtubules and other brain proteins. Quantum unity also
implies quantum non-locality, in which entangled particles can influence one another
instaneously."

from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.737.8147&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Here is support for Hameroff's and Penrose's ORCH OR Theory

"Quantum states in dendrites and soma of a particular neuron could
entangle with microtubules in the dendritic tree of that neuron, and also
in neighboring neurons via dendritic–dendritic (or dendritic–interneuron–
dendritic) gap junctions, enabling quantum entanglement of superposed
microtubule tubulins among many neurons (Fig. 1). This allows unity and
binding of conscious content, and a large EG which reaches threshold (by
τ ≈ ℏ/EG) quickly, such as at end-integration in EEG-relevant periods of
time, e.g., τ = 0.5 s to τ = 10−2 s."

from http://consciousness.arizona.edu/do...ReviewofOrchOR2016b2237_Ch-14_Revised-2-3.pdf

No, neither of theSe texts provide any support for that conciousness is entanglement. They are nothing but advanced wordsalads. There is really nothing else than "entanglement is sexy and I love it".

Penrose is deluded. He still says totally bonkers things as "As shown by Gödel’s theorem, Penrose (1989, 1994) described how the mental quality of “understanding” cannot be encapsulated by any computational system and must derive from some “non-computable” effect. ".

No. There is real support for the "entanglement" delusion.

There is the binding problem and the unity problem, which are what I was calling holistic properties of the consciousness.

Now think about it. What physical phenomena allows trully holistic properties of multiple fundamental particles. If all there is is quantified classical units in the brain there couldn't even be an illusion of holistic conscious thinking because the illusion itself requires a certain degree of unified physicality representing the illusion.

My argument is that entanglement and free will are possible explanations to cognition.

 

[ryan]

The idea's of Penrose, et al, regarding the nature of [quantum] consciousness is not generally taken seriously, except by a minority of 'quantum consciousness' enthusiasts.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Penrose, et al, are right and that consciousness does indeed depend on - ''biologically “orchestrated” coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity'' - this process is still not under conscious control or regulation by will. Consciousness is still remains whatever the brain is doing regardless of quantum mechanisms or classical mechanisms.

If the system of information processing breaks down, be it quantum or classical, this is reflected in conscious experience and no power of the will can alter the underlying conditions.

Well yeah, it needs all of the entangled parts to allow the dually holistic property of a thought. If a bunch of particles decay, it may alter the decision but it may be reported as an uncontrolled decision.

Imagine for a moment an alien comes to Earth that really does have the kind of free will that I am talking about. Wouldn't it still appear that the consciousness is doing whatever the brain is doing?

 

[bilby]

No, neither of theSe texts provide any support for that conciousness is entanglement. They are nothing but advanced wordsalads. There is really nothing else than "entanglement is sexy and I love it".

Penrose is deluded. He still says totally bonkers things as "As shown by Gödel’s theorem, Penrose (1989, 1994) described how the mental quality of “understanding” cannot be encapsulated by any computational system and must derive from some “non-computable” effect. ".

No. There is real support for the "entanglement" delusion.

There is the binding problem and the unity problem, which are what I was calling holistic properties of the consciousness.

Now think about it. What physical phenomena allows trully holistic properties of multiple fundamental particles. If all there is is quantified classical units in the brain there couldn't even be an illusion of holistic conscious thinking because the illusion itself requires a certain degree of unified physicality representing the illusion.

My argument is that entanglement and free will are possible explanations to cognition.

Your argument is that dualism must be right because it feels right; and that as it can't be explained by reductionism without quantum effects, it must therefore be explained by reduction to quantum effects.

This is wrong in pretty much every possible regard. Dualism is bullshit; feelings are not evidence; emergent properties are real, rendering reductionism bullshit too; and quantum effects in the brain occur at completely the wrong scale to be relevant.

You might as well try to reverse engineer a piece of software by looking at how semiconductors work.

Your approach is so deeply wrong that it is embarrassing.

 

[ryan]

There is the binding problem and the unity problem, which are what I was calling holistic properties of the consciousness.

Now think about it. What physical phenomena allows trully holistic properties of multiple fundamental particles. If all there is is quantified classical units in the brain there couldn't even be an illusion of holistic conscious thinking because the illusion itself requires a certain degree of unified physicality representing the illusion.

My argument is that entanglement and free will are possible explanations to cognition.

Your argument is that dualism must be right because it feels right; and that as it can't be explained by reductionism without quantum effects, it must therefore be explained by reduction to quantum effects.

This is wrong in pretty much every possible regard. Dualism is bullshit; feelings are not evidence; emergent properties are real, rendering reductionism bullshit too; and quantum effects in the brain occur at completely the wrong scale to be relevant.

You might as well try to reverse engineer a piece of software by looking at how semiconductors work.

Your approach is so deeply wrong that it is embarrassing.

dualism? Is it possible that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about? I mean I have never seen anyone on TF be so consistently off on a single thread.

 

[fromderinside]

Really ryan? Trying to ad hom you way out of a spot on critique. All you did was take the substance out of bilby's post and say "You're the one".

 

[ryan]

Really ryan? Trying to ad hom you way out of a spot on critique. All you did was take the substance out of bilby's post and say "You're the one".

He thinks my argument supports dualism when it is suppose to be the exact opposite. I can't believe this. Nobody except a couple seems to actually try to understand what I am talking about.

 

[fromderinside]

Your argument is that dualism must be right because it feels right; and that as it can't be explained by reductionism without quantum effects, it must therefore be explained by reduction to quantum effects.

This is wrong in pretty much every possible regard. Dualism is bullshit; feelings are not evidence; emergent properties are real, rendering reductionism bullshit too; and quantum effects in the brain occur at completely the wrong scale to be relevant.*

You might as well try to reverse engineer a piece of software by looking at how semiconductors work.

Your approach is so deeply wrong that it is embarrassing.

dualism? Is it possible that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about? I mean I have never seen anyone on TF be so consistently off on a single thread.

Really ryan? Except for emergent properties are real bilby is dead on. Science works because it assumes and works off of determinism which, in part, relies on (A+B)² = A² + 2(A*B) + B² or combining things are sums of their parts. Reductionism doesn't change this.

For instance mathematics that make the beyond our capability to measure things works because it is restricted to too fast, too short, too often, data with statistics filling gaps we can't measure. For one thing there may be several million transactions between observing a radioactive element before and after it decays . We don't know the underlying state of the molecule but we know that it will decay so we apply sticistical models to make 'guesses' that work on large scale. We know there are many transactions that can take place during the process of decay but we can't either identify or measure them so, statistics to fill the gaps.

Applying such math to things we can measure isn't necessary because we can measure and locate them. Also the same math that applies to molecular activity at a filter also applies to molecular activity across a selectively permeable menbrane, the neuron. And the model mechanical energy flow can be applied to electrical flow, fluid flow, and heat flow with just substitution of comperable domainb measureables.

We resort to statistics in neurscience for two main reasons. First there are too many intervening conditins between input and output altthough we can idetify and measure each one if it were islolated. Second since there are so many interveniang variables to accout we apply statistical models to help us find six sigma. Obviously qwuite diffreent from beyond our capacity to measure. We usew statistics in neuroscience as a convenience for moral and ethichal reasons rather than physical reasons.

As for the rest of his critique is more or less saying you don't have an sceintific perspectrive on things and you make up facts which is exactly what you do when you speculate without constraints on possibilities.

*_{^{Thanks bilby for accepting time scale pov}}

 

[ryan]

dualism? Is it possible that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about? I mean I have never seen anyone on TF be so consistently off on a single thread.

Really ryan? Except for emergent properties are real bilby is dead on. Science works because it assumes and works off of determinism which, in part, relies on (A+B)² = A² + 2(A*B) + B² or combining things are sums of their parts. Reductionism doesn't change this.

As for the rest of his critique is more or less saying you have a Trump perspectrive on things and you make up facts.

*_{^{Thanks bilby for accepting time scale pov}}

What ... the hell ... are you ... talking ... about??? You and bilby are in your own mixed up argument. You both are totally out of control.

 

[fromderinside]

I was still editing. Maybe if you attempt a re-read. It might help calibrate your thinking.

 

[ryan]

dualism? Is it possible that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about? I mean I have never seen anyone on TF be so consistently off on a single thread.

For instance mathematics that make the beyond our capability to measure things works because it is restricted to too fast, too short, too often, data with statistics filling gaps we can't measure. For one thing there may be several million transactions between observing a radioactive element before and after it decays . We don't know the underlying state of the molecule but we know that it will decay so we apply sticistical models to make 'guesses' that work on large scale. We know there are many transactions that can take place during the process of decay but we can't either identify or measure them so, statistics to fill the gaps.

This is just a philosophical guess. As far as science can tell, things work probabilistically at the quantum scale. Science must default to probabilistic indeterminism.

 

[Juma]

He thinks my argument supports dualism

It doesnt "support" dualism. It depends on it. You just disguise the soul as "entaglement".

 

[ryan]

He thinks my argument supports dualism

It doesnt "support" dualism. It depends on it. You just disguise the soul as "entaglement".

So now you have no idea what I am talking about. Do you think I am referring to the "what it's like" dual nature of the mind and body, or do you think I am referring to the binding and unity problems of consciousness where entanglement is meant to explain the dual structure of the parts and wholes that give way to whole thoughts?

Before you answer the question, read the quote I gave you hours ago from George A. Mashour's paper.

 

[untermensche]

One wonders how long this examination of angels dancing on pins can go on?

There is absolutely nothing to any of this nonsense.

Maybe there is some quantum effect related to consciousness.

We are a billion miles away from being able to examine them.

I can't believe this sheer insanity can go on so long.

In a so-called "science" forum.

 

[ryan]

Alright, I guess it's over for me; untermenche has spoken and does not approve.

Normally I would hope for some substance to a claim, but it is untarmensche saying it. And normally I would be concerned with the courtroom-like persuasive style arguments that don't use scientific or philosophical reasoning, but it's untermesche. Finally, only untermeste can use campaign style metaphorical clichés that are meant to sway ignorant heads, but the rest of you better have some sort of reasoning to support your claims.

 

[Juma]

It doesnt "support" dualism. It depends on it. You just disguise the soul as "entaglement".

So now you have no idea what I am talking about. Do you think I am referring to the "what it's like" dual nature of the mind and body, or do you think I am referring to the binding and unity problems of consciousness where entanglement is meant to explain the dual structure of the parts and wholes that give way to whole thoughts?

Before you answer the question, read the quote I gave you hours ago from George A. Mashour's paper.

I did. And the binding problem is not a problem at all if it wherent for the "what its like" problem and the religious belief in that what we perceive is exctly how it is.

 

[Juma]

Alright, I guess it's over for me; untermenche has spoken and does not approve.

Normally I would hope for some substance to a claim, but it is untarmensche saying it. And normally I would be concerned with the courtroom-like persuasive style arguments that don't use scientific or philosophicareasoning, but it's untermesche. Finally, untermeste can use campaign style metaphorical clichés that are meant to sway ignorant heads, but the rest of you better have some sort of reasoning to support your claims.

Why would we need that? You doesnt give a damn of what we write anyway.

 

[ryan]

So now you have no idea what I am talking about. Do you think I am referring to the "what it's like" dual nature of the mind and body, or do you think I am referring to the binding and unity problems of consciousness where entanglement is meant to explain the dual structure of the parts and wholes that give way to whole thoughts?

Before you answer the question, read the quote I gave you hours ago from George A. Mashour's paper.

I did. And the binding problem is not a problem at all if it wherent for the "what its like" problem and the religious belief in that what we perceive is exctly how it is.

What??? That has nothing to do with the binding problem, "How the brain ‘binds’ information to create a coherent perceptual experience is an enduring question.". from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857400/

"We present a method to solve the binding problem by using a quantum algorithm for the retrieval of associations from associative memory during visual scene analysis. The problem is solved by mapping the information representing different objects into superposition by using entanglement and Grover's amplification algorithm."

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27603782

What else besides entanglement would scientifically allow many objects to combine to have a property of one object? There is nothing known except entanglement.

 

[untermensche]

Alright, I guess it's over for me; untermenche has spoken and does not approve.

Normally I would hope for some substance to a claim, but it is untarmensche saying it. And normally I would be concerned with the courtroom-like persuasive style arguments that don't use scientific or philosophical reasoning, but it's untermesche. Finally, only untermeste can use campaign style metaphorical clichés that are meant to sway ignorant heads, but the rest of you better have some sort of reasoning to support your claims.

You may desperately want these musings to count as science but they don't.

They are what one day possibly leads to science.

But most ideas go nowhere. It is not likely somebody has hit upon some quantum effect involved in human consciousness in the absolute darkness.