Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

you cannot willfully choose different.
That you choice may contain a random emement doesnt only make less controlled, not free.

It only appears random and uncontrolled from an outside observer. The fact is that my consciousness agrees with the "random" choice made. We could be organisms that do things that we never wanted to chose at any time. I could just constantly be choosing things that I immediately did not want to choose, but we know that's not the case. We own our decisions, and we know we meant them at the time.

Here is where you go wrong. The randomness of a general wave collaps is not something you can control.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

 

[fromderinside]

First I'm going to agree that cognitive science hasn't done much in the way of ground breaking theory and discovery. Then I'm going show you that that petard is your way of thinking. Knowledge doesn't come from speculating on the rings of Saturn or by dropping microphones into Manhattan.. It comes from manipulating actual material things. The only reliable way that works for the brain is to examine interactions from synapse to synapse as do physiologists.

No ancient hand waving the term 'mind' or 'consciousness' over the working brain will ever do. So far all that has worked is good old materialistic experimental work going from known to unknown in tiny little steps. No jumps, no presumptions, no 'obvious' or 'self evident' incantation, just piling one datum upon another and trying to make sense. What appears is consistent and usable.

If the mind is some kind of effect caused by neurotransmitters moving across a synapse then possible looking at that will explain it.

But the mind is continually active while awake so whatever is creating it has to be a constant nonstop process.

It can't just be some activity of the brain that appears now and again.

If it were as simple as neurotransmitter moving across a synapse we could examine a simplified model of consciousness by examining neurons at the input or output behavior. But, as any second year student knows there are at least three rates of ion flow through neurons which impact both memory and action potentials in complex ways. My view is well known to you. There is no consciousness. Such would require a plan, a designer, at the very least. As a materialist I'm biased toward evolution and genetics theory. I know the power of chance over time. I'm pretty confident there will be neither a plan, a creator, nor consciousness.

 

[DBT]

Another ignorant remark. I have repeatedly said that it is not known how the brain forms its internal experience of the world in the form of conscious mind, but it is quite clear that it is the brain that is forming an experience of mind and self.

This is for all practical purposes is accepted by neuroscientists and researchers of other fields, evolutionary psychology, etc.

More than enough evidence showing that it is indeed the state and condition of the brain in any given instance that determines the state of its mind has been provided, yet you refuse to consider anything that contravenes your unfounded belief in an inexplicable and irrational autonomy of mind, which you have been asked to explain, but instead repeat your mantra ''I can move my finger at will'' - never mind that you didn't choose or generate your will consciously or have access to the initiation of the motor action...which, according to the available evidence, was set into motion milliseconds before conscious awareness.

You don't know any important things to know. Like what consciousness is or how it works. Like what any brain activity is actually doing.

There it is again. You comment on something that I'm not arguing for or making any claim - how many times have I said that it is not known how the brain forms conscious experience? - yet completely ignore the large body of evidence that support that it is the brain forming conscious experience/mind regardless of the fact that we don't understand how.

Brain condition is reflected in the form and attributes of conscious mind, which is not a singular experience but a multi faceted experience of vision (related to the state of the eyes, visual cortex, memory integration, etc) hearing (ear structure, auditory lobe, etc), associated feelings, thoughts and so on. Separate systems coming together in a 'global workspace' in order to form a unified experience of the external world and self. Each aspect being separable... you can go blind, deaf, unable to reason or recognise. Or any combination in between.

All related to brain architecture and state.

Which is widely accepted by those who work in the field....but not by Mr untermensche, who knows he can move his finger but refuses to acknowledge how this experience is actually formed, and can't explain his own belief in autonomous mind...dualism, an idea that was discredited long ago.

 

[DBT]

The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known. The problem is that it would take computers that will not exist for a long time.

So do you realise that by making that claim you have proven yourself wrong? That from this point on you can no longer lay claim to 'free will' as a possibility to have chosen to have done something differently?

If quantum computing and SE has the ability to predict your decisions and actions to a 'certain probability' you are dancing to the tune of wave function and have no will of your own.

This is regardless of the fact that you cannot manipulate wave function (depending on the QM interpretation you favour) to the dictates of your will.

 

[ryan]

It only appears random and uncontrolled from an outside observer. The fact is that my consciousness agrees with the "random" choice made. We could be organisms that do things that we never wanted to chose at any time. I could just constantly be choosing things that I immediately did not want to choose, but we know that's not the case. We own our decisions, and we know we meant them at the time.

Here is where you go wrong. The randomness of a general wave collaps is not something you can control.

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

 

[ryan]

The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known. The problem is that it would take computers that will not exist for a long time.

So do you realise that by making that claim you have proven yourself wrong? That from this point on you can no longer lay claim to 'free will' as a possibility to have chosen to have done something differently?

If quantum computing and SE has the ability to predict your decisions and actions to a 'certain probability' you are dancing to the tune of wave function and have no will of your own.

This is regardless of the fact that you cannot manipulate wave function (depending on the QM interpretation you favour) to the dictates of your will.

Let's say a dog is a room and its decision making is purely random. There are 10 open doors; 3 are white and 7 are black. There is a 70% chance it will pick a black door to walk through, but it may just chose a white door.

 

[Juma]

Here is where you go wrong. The randomness of a general wave collaps is not something you can control.

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

Eh. Please. That is totally beside th point: for example: A byte has 8 simultainous states that gives 8 bits of information...

And more important: a decision is a single outcome. Not a qubit. To make that decision the wave has already formed so that one single outcome is the only possible one.

 

[DBT]

So do you realise that by making that claim you have proven yourself wrong? That from this point on you can no longer lay claim to 'free will' as a possibility to have chosen to have done something differently?

If quantum computing and SE has the ability to predict your decisions and actions to a 'certain probability' you are dancing to the tune of wave function and have no will of your own.

This is regardless of the fact that you cannot manipulate wave function (depending on the QM interpretation you favour) to the dictates of your will.

Let's say a dog is a room and its decision making is purely random. There are 10 open doors; 3 are white and 7 are black. There is a 70% chance it will pick a black door to walk through, but it may just chose a white door.

None of this helps you with free will. If decision making is purely random it is not 'decision making' - it is not something the dog or the brain of the dog chose to do. It is a random action. A random action does not help you with free will because it neither willed, desired, wanted or chosen.

It's another version of the coin flip. The coin doesn't choose heads or tails.

Your claim is cooked, ryan. Burnt to a crisp.

 

[ryan]

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

Eh. Please. That is totally beside th point: for example: A byte has 8 simultainous states that gives 8 bits of information...

And more important: a decision is a single outcome. Not a qubit. To make that decision the wave has already formed so that one single outcome is the only possible one.

What are you talking about??? Of course there can only be one outcome (leaving out MWI).

 

[ryan]

Let's say a dog is a room and its decision making is purely random. There are 10 open doors; 3 are white and 7 are black. There is a 70% chance it will pick a black door to walk through, but it may just chose a white door.

None of this helps you with free will. If decision making is purely random it is not 'decision making' - it is not something the dog or the brain of the dog chose to do. It is a random action. A random action does not help you with free will because it neither willed, desired, wanted or chosen.

That's your definition of decision making. For some reason you need decision making to be a determined hardwired process. But I am almost positive that the concept of decision making originates from reports and reflections of what people say they experience when making a decision. The mechanical definitions come after.

It's another version of the coin flip. The coin doesn't choose heads or tails.

But we aren't talking about a coin; we are talking about a quantum consciousness and a quantum decision-making processes.

Your claim is cooked, ryan. Burnt to a crisp.

You should know by now that this will not work with me.

 

[DBT]

That's your definition of decision making. For some reason you need decision making to be a determined hardwired process. But I am almost positive that the concept of decision making originates from reports and reflections of what people say they experience when making a decision. The mechanical definitions come after.

I was actually responding to your claim, not what I happen to be arguing.

Here is what you said: ''Let's say a dog is a room and its decision making is purely random.''

''The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known.''

But we aren't talking about a coin; we are talking about a quantum consciousness and a quantum decision-making processes.

I wasn't talking about a literal coin, just outcome probability. More to the point, non-chosen probabilistic outcome, but actually a deterministic process. Schrodinger's equation being deterministic.

You should know by now that this will not work with me.

I know. But it works well enough for me.

 

[Juma]

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

Eh. Please. That is totally beside th point: for example: A byte has 8 simultainous states that gives 8 bits of information...

And more important: a decision is a single outcome. Not a qubit. To make that decision the wave has already formed so that one single outcome is the only possible one.

What are you talking about??? Of course there can only be one outcome (leaving out MWI).

It's very simple: to be a decision the superposition of waves must have resulted in a wave that has a very sharp point for one specific outcome.

And thus there is no randomness involved st all.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know any important things to know. Like what consciousness is or how it works. Like what any brain activity is actually doing.

There it is again. You comment on something that I'm not arguing for or making any claim - how many times have I said that it is not known how the brain forms conscious experience? - yet completely ignore the large body of evidence that support that it is the brain forming conscious experience/mind regardless of the fact that we don't understand how.

There you go again.

Knowing nothing and pretending to know everything. The absurdity is amazing.

How the brain creates consciousness is the essential knowledge to understanding what consciousness is and what it can do to the brain.

If you don't know how the brain creates consciousness you don't know what consciousness is. You don't know one thing about it.

Except as something experienced.

If you don't know how the brain creates consciousness you can't look at any activity in the brain and understand what it is doing. You can't look at any activity in the brain and understand how it arose or what other part of the brain it may be effecting.

If you don't know how the brain creates consciousness then consciousness may be some unexplained and unknown Quantum effect. There is no way to say it is not.

Brain condition is reflected in the form and attributes of conscious mind, which is not a singular experience but a multi faceted experience of vision (related to the state of the eyes, visual cortex, memory integration, etc) hearing (ear structure, auditory lobe, etc), associated feelings, thoughts and so on. Separate systems coming together in a 'global workspace' in order to form a unified experience of the external world and self. Each aspect being separable... you can go blind, deaf, unable to reason or recognise. Or any combination in between.

I don't know how many times you have to be told. Saying the brain works with modules and specific regions with specific functions explains NOTHING.

It is not an argument leading anywhere.

It is empty talk, blabbering, just saying the tiny few things known and pretending they say something else.

Saying the brain creates consciousness and saying the brain creates consciousness using modules is the same level of ignorance as to what consciousness is and how it works and what it is capable of.

 

[ryan]

I was actually responding to your claim, not what I happen to be arguing.

Here is what you said: ''Let's say a dog is a room and its decision making is purely random.''

''The SE would not only be able to predict brain states to a certain probability, but it would be the most accurate way known.''

It would be the most accurate way to predict something, but still is not nearly as accurate as a classical/linear equation. And its precision is not good at all because of the probabilistic nature of QM.

But we aren't talking about a coin; we are talking about a quantum consciousness and a quantum decision-making processes.

I wasn't talking about a literal coin, just outcome probability. More to the point, non-chosen probabilistic outcome, but actually a deterministic process. Schrodinger's equation being deterministic.

It is not completely deterministic. It only determines probabilities.

 

[DBT]

It is not an argument leading anywhere.

The irony of this coming from someone who is making a claim that is not supported by practically everyone who works in the field of neuroscience obviously escapes you

If you don't know how the brain creates consciousness then consciousness may be some unexplained and unknown Quantum effect. There is no way to say it is not.

That makes no difference. There are no examples of consciousness/mind without the presence of an active brain. All the evidence shows that it id the state of the brain that is reflected in how consciousness/mind is being expressed, vision, the ability to reason and so on. Quantum effects is the substrata of all brains. Quantum substructure is common to all brain, neural architecture being the means of information processing.

Your claim of autonomous mind has no evidence to support the notion. The irony being that you make a claim that you can't explain, ignore what is understood and howl about what is not known.

 

[ryan]

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

Eh. Please. That is totally beside th point: for example: A byte has 8 simultainous states that gives 8 bits of information...

And more important: a decision is a single outcome. Not a qubit. To make that decision the wave has already formed so that one single outcome is the only possible one.

What are you talking about??? Of course there can only be one outcome (leaving out MWI).

It's very simple: to be a decision the superposition of waves must have resulted in a wave that has a very sharp point for one specific outcome.

And thus there is no randomness involved st all.

I have already been through this with DBT. New models from new research suggests that decisions are held in a state like a superposition where different decisions are quite possible.

 

[Juma]

A quantum consciousness means that I am the wave function; I am the collapse.

What you can do, and how quantum computers work, is to create a very narrow wavefunction so that one option has high probability and all others none.

You see: for a QM system to be said to have made a choice it must have singled out an single option. Thus there is not any random element left and thus any room for your version of "free will".

The point of the qubit is that it can be in two states simultaneously. This gives up to 2 classical bits of information instead of just 1 bit from classical binary system.

Eh. Please. That is totally beside th point: for example: A byte has 8 simultainous states that gives 8 bits of information...

And more important: a decision is a single outcome. Not a qubit. To make that decision the wave has already formed so that one single outcome is the only possible one.

What are you talking about??? Of course there can only be one outcome (leaving out MWI).

It's very simple: to be a decision the superposition of waves must have resulted in a wave that has a very sharp point for one specific outcome.

And thus there is no randomness involved st all.

I have already been through this with DBT. New models from new research suggests that decisions are held in a state like a superposition where different decisions are quite possible.

Have you any training in QM at all?

It doesnt seem so

 

[ryan]

I have already been through this with DBT. New models from new research suggests that decisions are held in a state like a superposition where different decisions are quite possible.

Have you any training in QM at all?

It doesnt seem so

Yes I have; it's unavoidable in chemistry and physics. What have I said that's wrong? As for quantum cognition, I have posted numerous papers explaining how decisions are in a mathematical superposition-like state. I told you that I am not going to go through his again. Either believe it or don't.

 

[Juma]

Have you any training in QM at all?

It doesnt seem so

Yes I have; it's unavoidable in chemistry and physics. What have I said that's wrong? As for quantum cognition, I have posted numerous papers explaining how decisions are in a mathematical superposition-like state. I told you that I am not going to go through his again. Either believe it or don't.

Then let me explain me explain it to you, again. (Not that i has any real hope that you will read and comment on what I actually write)

That the "decision is a superposition" means that somehow the brain constraints the waveform into a distribution with a single top. That top represents the decision. Where hhat top is is totally deterministic.

If there are multiple tops that means that we really didnt come to a conclusion more than one result is possible.

Neither of these cases is "free will" as you define it. Since first case is totally deterministic and the second case is purely random = uncontrolled.

 

[ryan]

Yes I have; it's unavoidable in chemistry and physics. What have I said that's wrong? As for quantum cognition, I have posted numerous papers explaining how decisions are in a mathematical superposition-like state. I told you that I am not going to go through his again. Either believe it or don't.

Then let me explain me explain it to you, again. (Not that i has any real hope that you will read and comment on what I actually write)

That the "decision is a superposition" means that somehow the brain constraints the waveform into a distribution with a single top. That top represents the decision. Where hhat top is is totally deterministic.

If there are multiple tops that means that we really didnt come to a conclusion more than one result is possible.

You're right; I don't understand what you are talking about. When I studied this, they did not explain such terms like "waveform" and "top". We had other terms like probability distributions and probability densities by squaring the wave function of the Schrodinger equation. So you're right; I do not know the kind of science you know.

Neither of these cases is "free will" as you define it. Since first case is totally deterministic and the second case is purely random = uncontrolled.

As I define it? How about how it is usually defined: the ability to have chosen differently? We know that a choice made could have been something different if it is in a superposition with other choices. I mean this is just obvious.

Do you even understand what it means for something to be a state of superposition in terms of QM? There may be a probability assigned to the set of possible outcomes, but it is not determinable what the outcome will be.

This is such a waste of time. I knew I shouldn't have went down this road with you.

The only thing that is certain is that you will never admit when you are wrong. There must be a "top" there.