Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

I didn't even know about this "binding problem" other than it is obviously a problem for a reducible brain, leaving a painfully obvious solution to at least be explored, quantum entanglement.

 

[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.

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.

Instead of just raging out of control with frustration at the sheer ignorance and arrogance that is being shown by your post, I am actually going to try to give you time to read through this thread and come back with an actual argument and specify exactly what I claim is science and what I claim is possible scientifically.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Instead of just raging out of control with frustration at the sheer ignorance and arrogance that is being shown by your post, I am actually going to try to give you time to read through this thread and come back with an actual argument and specify exactly what I claim is science and what I claim is possible scientifically.

You have a bias.

You want your wild speculations made in complete darkness to amount to something.

You want something here.

You are not unbiased.

What do I care if some quantum mechanism is actually discovered?

All I know is talking about quantum effects on the large scale is dubious science. Schrödinger's cat is dubious science.

 

[ryan]

Instead of just raging out of control with frustration at the sheer ignorance and arrogance that is being shown by your post, I am actually going to try to give you time to read through this thread and come back with an actual argument and specify exactly what I claim is science and what I claim is possible scientifically.

You have a bias.

You want your wild speculations made in complete darkness to amount to something.

You want something here.

You are not unbiased.

What do I care if some quantum mechanism is actually discovered?

How do I know you don't? It's useless to assume a bias.

All I know is talking about quantum effects on the large scale is dubious science. Schrödinger's cat is dubious science.

This has nothing to do with that. Maybe it got briefly mentioned 100's of posts ago when you were here. This is just too vague of a reason to argue with.

 

[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.

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.

That's not how it works. It is not quantum entanglement that enables communication between neurons and their structures but synaptic connections (dendrites).

Nor is an 'uncontrolled decision' (which is no decision at at all in terms of meaningful relationship to inputs and conditions) an example of a willed or chosen decision in response to something that requires a rational response, an example of 'free will'.

Why do you keep bringing this up? It's not an argument for free will.

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?

Consciousness is something the brain is doing. There is nothing else that does it.

 

[Juma]

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.

Computers.

For the millionth time:
The conciousness isnt an object. The brain is the object. Conciousness is a process in the brain.

 

[ryan]

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?

Consciousness is something the brain is doing. There is nothing else that does it.

I agree, except when quantum probability is involved. The alien's brain would have random or discontinuous changes to it. It would have been able to have chosen differently.

 

[ryan]

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.

Computers.

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

For the millionth time:
The conciousness isnt an object. The brain is the object. Conciousness is a process in the brain.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

 

[Juma]

Computers.

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

For the millionth time:
The conciousness isnt an object. The brain is the object. Conciousness is a process in the brain.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

 

[DBT]

Consciousness is something the brain is doing. There is nothing else that does it.

I agree, except when quantum probability is involved. The alien's brain would have random or discontinuous changes to it. It would have been able to have chosen differently.

Random changes within a system do not produce rational outputs or decisions. The brain is not a random 'decision maker' - it is a classical system evolved to perceive and respond to events in the environment in a related and rational way,

 

[untermensche]

You have a bias.

You want your wild speculations made in complete darkness to amount to something.

You want something here.

You are not unbiased.

What do I care if some quantum mechanism is actually discovered?

How do I know you don't? It's useless to assume a bias.

All I know is talking about quantum effects on the large scale is dubious science. Schrödinger's cat is dubious science.

This has nothing to do with that. Maybe it got briefly mentioned 100's of posts ago when you were here. This is just too vague of a reason to argue with.

I'm not asking for any argument or for you to explain yourself.

I am pointing out that this is total folly. There is nothing here. Nothing that science can deal with at least.

This is commonly called mental masturbation.

What is amazing is how many are willing to enter this circle jerk.

 

[ryan]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

For the millionth time:
The conciousness isnt an object. The brain is the object. Conciousness is a process in the brain.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole. Or, 1+1=2 must be true as a whole for science and everything else to have any true ontological meaning.

 

[ryan]

I agree, except when quantum probability is involved. The alien's brain would have random or discontinuous changes to it. It would have been able to have chosen differently.

Random changes within a system do not produce rational outputs or decisions. The brain is not a random 'decision maker' - it is a classical system evolved to perceive and respond to events in the environment in a related and rational way,

The brain doesn't have to be rational. We have been over this many times.

 

[ryan]

How do I know you don't? It's useless to assume a bias.

All I know is talking about quantum effects on the large scale is dubious science. Schrödinger's cat is dubious science.

This has nothing to do with that. Maybe it got briefly mentioned 100's of posts ago when you were here. This is just too vague of a reason to argue with.

I'm not asking for any argument or for you to explain yourself.

I am pointing out that this is total folly. There is nothing here. Nothing that science can deal with at least.

No, you are wrong. And don't try to explain yourself.

Hey, that was easy! Maybe you are onto to something untremenche.

 

[fromderinside]

"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.

The authors set up a straw man then then they take from another domain operations they propose to resolve the "problem".

Great. Except time scales are way different and there are known macro world measurements of the brain that stores and retrieves memories. Critical aspect. One can take statistics and use it in both domains but one cannot replace inability to measure with too many measured or hard to access measurable things and not expect the analysis to come tumbling down when macro measures are accomplished. We can model the auditory system as cross and auto-correlation functions until we find that these models are not up to explaining the discontinuities of the auditory reception system. Superposistion and entanglement explanations also fall aside when multiple awarenesses and attentions are discovered and located in particular regions of the cortex.

 

[ryan]

"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.

The authors set up a straw man then then they take from another domain operations they propose to resolve the "problem".

So you aren't wrong. It must be that the whole peer reviewed system is wrong. Suuuure

 

[Juma]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

For the millionth time:
The conciousness isnt an object. The brain is the object. Conciousness is a process in the brain.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

 

[fromderinside]

So you aren't wrong. It must be that the whole peer reviewed system is wrong. Suuuure

The examples I gave came from the sixties and eighties in peer reviewed articles. Peer review is part of the scientific process.

Your second article is theoretical. Again, part of the scientific process as are my critiques re scale and measurement.

Your "Ignoring problems, incompatibilities, and using possibility as key" seem to be pure unsupported speculation.

 

[ryan]

The binding problem exists even with information processing theories.

Well that's why there is a binding problem and a problem of unity. Entanglement, on the surface, solves those problems.

No there isnt. We only behave "as if". There is no such binding or unity in reality.

Contradictorily, if your statement is correct, then it needs to be true as a whole.

you are welcome to try to show that.

What are talking about? How could your statement be only partly true if the whole thing is required for it to be true? If you cut the sentence in half, then it is not half true. The conscious perception of a true statement disappears; its meaning is consciously irreducible. There is a unity problem that can't be fixed with isolated particles making up the consciousness.

 

[ryan]

So you aren't wrong. It must be that the whole peer reviewed system is wrong. Suuuure

The examples I gave came from the sixties and eighties in peer reviewed articles. Peer review is part of the scientific process.

Your second article is theoretical. Again, part of the scientific process as are my critiques re scale and measurement.

Your "Ignoring problems, incompatibilities, and using possibility as key" seem to be pure unsupported speculation.

Then you must falsify or discredit their paper, have it pass peer review and then pull it up out of a credible journal bank to show me. I am not a "peer" who can review your claims. I have no choice but to adhere to recent papers over anything else.