Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

QM is only objectively random, but it might be subjectively on purpose.

Objectively random? Schrodinger's equation is not random.

'Subjectively on purpose' suggests that QM itself has the ability to think and decide.

 

[ryan]

I have been commenting on that all throughout this thread. If ''I'' refers to the organism as a whole, body/brain/mind, ''I'' is much more than a quantum mechanical process.

"I" refers to the consciousness the same way we were using "me".

It is also a macro scale structure with macro scale physics. Physics of scale, quantum behaviour does not fully describe macro scale physics.

I believe only gravity has been left out of the unification from QM to macro. Physics must be reducible as we understand it.

"QMP did X" is equivalent to "I did X"

Whatever QMP, and whatever role QMP plays within the macro scale architecture of the brain is not chosen by you.

"me" being QMP.

 

[ryan]

QM is only objectively random, but it might be subjectively on purpose.

Objectively random? Schrodinger's equation is not random.

'Subjectively on purpose' suggests that QM itself has the ability to think and decide.

The Schrodinger equation is probabilistic, which is the same as various degrees of randomness to a human.

"The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

Do you not believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

 

[Juma]

Randomness is uncontrolable by definition. Creativity is not randomness. On the contrary: creativity wast amount of knowledge and ability to see many solutions and filter out the uninteresting ones.

QM is only objectively random, but it might be subjectively on purpose.

And there may as well be a tea-kettle orbiting mars...

There is NOTHING supporting this. Its pure religion.

Any purposeful action would deflect from the results predicted by Schrödinger equation.

 

[DBT]

Objectively random? Schrodinger's equation is not random.

'Subjectively on purpose' suggests that QM itself has the ability to think and decide.

The Schrodinger equation is probabilistic, which is the same as various degrees of randomness to a human.

"The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

Do you not believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

''Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. ... The Schrödinger equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.'' - wiki.

 

[DBT]

I believe only gravity has been left out of the unification from QM to macro. Physics must be reducible as we understand it.

''At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces—electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.

Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

The conflict between the two halves of physics has been brewing for more than a century—sparked by a pair of 1905 papers by Einstein, one outlining relativity and the other introducing the quantum—but recently it has entered an intriguing, unpredictable new phase. Two notable physicists have staked out extreme positions in their camps, conducting experiments that could finally settle which approach is paramount.''

"QMP did X" is equivalent to "I did X"

In that case you have no ability to choose, because there is no evidence to support the idea that Quantum scale activity makes decisions. You are then the deterministic evolution of the wave function of a particle.

 

[ryan]

QM is only objectively random, but it might be subjectively on purpose.

And there may as well be a tea-kettle orbiting mars...

There is NOTHING supporting this. Its pure religion.

Yes, if subjectivity is a ghost in the machine, then yes, I don't know if the ghost has control over the body or is just in a cosmic coincidence of parallelism.

Any purposeful action would deflect from the results predicted by Schrödinger equation.

The Schrodinger equation is only used for very simple systems, like a few bonded atoms. Computers are not powerful enough yet to calculate complex systems like brain. And even then, it would be on a case per case basis. One person might chose X 4 times out of 10 with a probability of doing so by SE of 40%. But SE would not know which time the person does and does not choose X.

 

[ryan]

The Schrodinger equation is probabilistic, which is the same as various degrees of randomness to a human.

"The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

Do you not believe that the consciousness makes decisions?

''Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. ... The Schrödinger equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.'' - wiki.

The Schrodinger equation is not what you think it is. It only gives wave function (psi) or energy state H*(psi) or energy of the atom E. H(psi) = E(psi)

It is only a description that can ultimately give a probability density of a particle when psi is squared. So it may determine that an electron has a 90% chance at being at some energy level.

 

[ryan]

''At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces—electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.

Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

The conflict between the two halves of physics has been brewing for more than a century—sparked by a pair of 1905 papers by Einstein, one outlining relativity and the other introducing the quantum—but recently it has entered an intriguing, unpredictable new phase. Two notable physicists have staked out extreme positions in their camps, conducting experiments that could finally settle which approach is paramount.''

Yes, and the main difference is that relativity describes gravity as a curve in space-time; whereas QM uses force particles called gravitons. But it doesn't mean the physics is actually irreducible. One of them might be wrong, and then unification will be one step closer. But then again, it just may be that physics is irreducible, but that is not as clean as a unification theory (Occam's razor).

"QMP did X" is equivalent to "I did X"

In that case you have no ability to choose, because there is no evidence to support the idea that Quantum scale activity makes decisions. You are then the deterministic evolution of the wave function of a particle.

Again, the square of the wave function only gives probability densities. It determines a probability.

And I am not saying that the consciousness is only QM activity.

 

[Juma]

Again, the square of the wave function only gives probability densities. It determines a probability.

There is 1/6 chances of a six when rolling a dice.
If the outcome was ruled ny purpose that probability would be wrong.

 

[ryan]

Again, the square of the wave function only gives probability densities. It determines a probability.

There is 1/6 chances of a six when rolling a dice.
If the outcome was ruled ny purpose that probability would be wrong.

It seems that assigning a probability is relative to the observer. Before I role a die, I would be justified by assigning a probability of a certain number to be 1/6. But what if the person next to me has a super computer that can predict a number based on the table, die, force, air etc? If that number is, say, 1/5, with every other number having a 4/25, then we both would be justified as long as I don't have access to the better information.

 

[untermensche]

You mean the dogma of being able to move my finger at "will"?

You repeat this like a religious mantra despite having been provided with evidence for multiple distinct systems being at work to produce both the motor action and the awareness of desire and intention to move your finger.

Nothing you have said has in any way shown I can't move my finger at "will".

Repeating this magic bit of near meaningless jargon: "multiple distinct systems" is not any kind of proof or argument I can't move my finger at "will".

The fact that you think you can just throw out some near meaningless jargon and dismiss real evidence is amazing.

What it really shows is a complete unwillingness to even examine the issue.

Some activity you don't understand came to be in some way you don't understand and did something you don't understand.

And from this you conclude: "I know everything about initiation of movement now." It is astounding in both it's blindness and boldness.

Michael Gazzaniga;
''Our brain is not a unified structure; instead it is composed of several modules that work out their computations separately, in what are called neural networks. These networks can carry out activities largely on their own. The visual network, for example, responds to visual stimulation and is also active during visualimagery—that is, seeing something with your mind’s eye; the motor network can produce movement and is active during imagined movements. Yet even though our brain carries out all these functions in a modular system, we do not feel like a million little robots carrying out their disjointed activities. We feel like one, coherent self with intentions and reasons for what we feel are our unified actions. How can this be?

Over the past thirty years I have been studying a phenomenon that was first revealed during work with split-brain patients,who’d had the connections between the two brain hemispheres severed to relieve severe epilepsy. My colleagues and I weren’t looking for the answer to the question of what makes us seem unified, but we think we found it. It follows from the idea that if the brain is modular, a part of the brain must be monitoring all the networks’ behaviors and trying to interpret their individual actions in order to create a unified idea of the self. Our best candidate for this brain area is the “left-hemisphere interpreter.”Beyond the finding, described in the last chapter, that the left hemisphere makes strange input logical, it includes a special region that interprets the inputs we receive every moment and weaves them into stories to form the ongoing narrative of our self-image and our beliefs. I have called this area of the left hemisphere the interpreter because it seeks explanations for internal and external events and expands on the actual facts we experience to make sense of, or interpret, the events of our life.''

Here he clearly say's that "visualimagry", imagining something, is seeing with the "mind's eye". In other words, under the control of the "mind". He can't help himself. As much as he would like to give the brain the control over the mind willfully imagining things, he expresses it in a way that says the opposite.

Saying the brain is modular is saying barely, just barely, I can't say "barely" strong enough, barely more than just saying the whole brain does things. Nothing about brain activity is explained or understood by saying the brain is modular. Not one thing about the "mind" and consciousness is understood by saying the brain is modular. Nothing about initiation of movement or expression or imagining things is understood by saying the brain is modular.

The brain is modular and that is not unexpected. But saying a module did something is not more than saying the brain did something when what it is doing is not understood in the least in terms of how the activity relates to the production or impingement of consciousness.

So the "mind" is a kind of "module" produced by brain activity that can in itself effect brain activity.

There is your module explanation of mind. I'm all done. Know it all now.

Yet, amazingly, despite all the research on how the experience and action is carried out, you still focus on the phenomena and ignore the means by which the action is produced.

No such research exists.

There is some research that shows that some activity occurs, that nobody understands, in the motor cortex whether the hand moves or not when the mind is aware of a decision to be made soon.

Nothing can be made of this. It explains absolutely nothing.

Nonsense, mind cannot do anything that brain is not doing. That is proven by any significant change to brain condition, being drunk, drugs, various chemical and structural changes to the brain, electrical stimulation and so on.

Memory function failure alone progressively destroys the mind.

Why do you continue with this bad logic? Even after I have explained it to you.

If the brain is the car and the mind is the driver then damaging the car with alcohol or drugs disrupts the ability of the mind to control the car.

You have once again explained nothing yet think you know everything.

And if the memory system fails then the mind cannot access memory. Nothing wrong with the mind, something wrong with the memory system.

Logic is not on your side.

I did not say the mind serves no purpose. I even outlined the purpose of our internal mental representation of information from the external world and our (organism/brain/mind) place in it as an adaptive means of interacting with our environment

The issue is not the representation. The issue is also this thing "the mind" that has awareness of the representation.

The representation is fine.

But according to you this thing that has awareness of the representation, "the mind" is completely superfluous. It can do nothing with what it makes of the representation.

You can't escape it. The conclusion of your position is that the mind, the being aware of representations, is completely superfluous, since it can act in no way, even though it continually believes itself to be acting.

And Shakespeare did not write with his mind. His brain wrote it all for some incredibly unknown reason. As if Shakespeare's brain were just a puppet of some god that wanted a good play.

 

[Juma]

There is 1/6 chances of a six when rolling a dice.
If the outcome was ruled ny purpose that probability would be wrong.

It seems that assigning a probability is relative to the observer.

No, it is not. Using better models is not "being relative to the observer".

And who is right? Just roll the dice and measure the outcome!

 

[ryan]

It seems that assigning a probability is relative to the observer.

No, it is not. Using better models is not "being relative to the observer".

And who is right? Just roll the dice and measure the outcome!

This will explain what I mean better. You are in a box and can't see out. Someone outside the box roles a die. The die lands on 6. You don't know this because you are in the box. You would be justified by assigning the die a 1/6 chance it landed on 6. The person outside the box assigns 1 that it landed on 6 because he sees the outcome.

 

[fromderinside]

Did you read my links? Do you understand what it means to interfere with gap junctions?

Inappropriate response.

Synapses, a form of gap junction in neural tissue requires transmission of significant properly configured molecules (hundreds to thousands) to communicate between neurons. The actions of these molecules are to transfer energy of a specific sort to a receptor which initiates release of chemicals for carrying information forward in the particular neural system in which the gaps reside. To suggest that QM temporal uncertainty of action of creating a photon from one atom in a molecule is sufficient is ridiculous.

So, no, I know nothing of gap junctions beyond the fact that I know you know nothing about what gap junctions are there to mediate.

 

[fromderinside]

Going directly to the chase.

.... I can't move my finger at "will".

As you wrote, you can't will your finger to move. For one's 'will' to do so would mean that self same 'will' organize the muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, etc., in the local area the finger to move in a particular way. Most of those components are trained through practice and maturation to some number of coordinated operations over time.

The 'will', given conditions are proper might select one of these operations. But the particular operation would conform to existing situations in which the finger and the hand find themselves. So its not willing the finger to move that would be a demonstration of will. It must, to be will, be an explicit and exact finger movement for such an activity to have any hope of being determined to be and act 'of free will'.

So no, you can't say I can move my finger at 'will'. You can't because it's nearly impossible to set up conditions whereby such an action would be a clear demonstration of anything resembling 'free will'.

 

[ryan]

Did you read my links? Do you understand what it means to interfere with gap junctions?

Inappropriate response.

Synapses, a form of gap junction in neural tissue requires transmission of significant properly configured molecules (hundreds to thousands) to communicate between neurons. The actions of these molecules are to transfer energy of a specific sort to a receptor which initiates release of chemicals for carrying information forward in the particular neural system in which the gaps reside. To suggest that QM temporal uncertainty of action of creating a photon from one atom in a molecule is sufficient is ridiculous.

So, no, I know nothing of gap junctions beyond the fact that I know you know nothing about what gap junctions are there to mediate.

First, you missed the s after junction. Second, why would you think that this theory of consciousness is only capable of affecting one gap junction? Clearly the paper does not suggest that the consciousness would only affect one gap junction. You didn't read it did you.

 

[untermensche]

Going directly to the chase.

.... I can't move my finger at "will".

As you wrote, you can't will your finger to move. For one's 'will' to do so would mean that self same 'will' organize the muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons, etc., in the local area the finger to move in a particular way. Most of those components are trained through practice and maturation to some number of coordinated operations over time.

The only elements in the entire system that can do anything are the muscles.

Either muscles contract or they hold or they relax.

Coordinated movement has two aspects. The aspect controlled by the cerebellum and the aspect held in this thing called "muscle memory". The golf swing in a good player exists as a fairly rigid "memory".

Walking also has a genetic component and is something humans acquire as much as learn.

So the "will" can only be some general "switch" not something with total control.

The "will" decides to go golfing and decides what club to use but some aspects of the brain help make the shot when the "will" decides to take it.

The 'will', given conditions are proper might select one of these operations. But the particular operation would conform to existing situations in which the finger and the hand find themselves. So its not willing the finger to move that would be a demonstration of will. It must, to be will, be an explicit and exact finger movement for such an activity to have any hope of being determined to be and act 'of free will'.

So no, you can't say I can move my finger at 'will'. You can't because it's nearly impossible to set up conditions whereby such an action would be a clear demonstration of anything resembling 'free will'.

If a brain "decides" to initiate movement this initiation must occur somehow.

Saying the "will" decides creates no new conditions then saying the brain "decides".

 

[ryan]

DBT, I just want to correct a mistake before everyone jumps all over it. The SE can give, with certainty, the proper energy level but will be uncertain on the position, which then would give us the energy level at that moment in time.

 

[DBT]

''Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. ... The Schrödinger equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.'' - wiki.

The Schrodinger equation is not what you think it is.

I have no thoughts on the matter other than what the equation itself is in relation to describing the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle.

You should be concerned with your own untenable claims. You ignore the numerous elements that destroy your contentions and just go on to repeat them in a slightly different form.

QM, probability function or radioactive decay doesn't help establish an argument for free will in general, nor your particular slant on it.... for the given reasons.