Human Instinct and Free Will

[ryan]

Superposition doesn't exist with cells, their connections or encoded memory....feeling ''ambiguous superposition of all the options'' (being indecisive) has nothing whatsoever to do with processing information on the basis of a given set of criteria, nor is the brain or any portion of the brain in a state of superposition. This only applies to wave function....not dendrites, synapses, neurons, etc.

You are going to hate this paper titled: "Superposition of episodic memories: overdistribution and quantum models".

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

There is no reason for me to hate it. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You are reading these articles through the filter of your own ideas. As previously mentioned, quantum states probably play a part in enabling connectivity and thus enabling connections to be made and memory being integrated into consciousness.

Memory content, the objects and events of the world, is not related to quantum probability, it is information encoded into cells and and their connections to the network as a whole.

Read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

 

[DBT]

Superposition doesn't exist with cells, their connections or encoded memory....feeling ''ambiguous superposition of all the options'' (being indecisive) has nothing whatsoever to do with processing information on the basis of a given set of criteria, nor is the brain or any portion of the brain in a state of superposition. This only applies to wave function....not dendrites, synapses, neurons, etc.




There is no reason for me to hate it. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You are reading these articles through the filter of your own ideas. As previously mentioned, quantum states probably play a part in enabling connectivity and thus enabling connections to be made and memory being integrated into consciousness.

Memory content, the objects and events of the world, is not related to quantum probability, it is information encoded into cells and and their connections to the network as a whole.

Read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Ryan, there is absolutely nothing in that article (I have seen it before), that supports the idea that it is quantum entanglement or super position that processes information and makes decisions.

That is the role of neural architecture, entangled states probably play a part in synaptic clefts, enabling connectivity, etc, as both I and other posters have already pointed out, but particle entanglement or wave function doesn't decide whether you decide to marry your girlfriend, buy a house and have children.

You are confusing/conflating the quantum substructure/makeup of the components and their evolved function with the cognitive and decision making roles that they are structured by their very architecture to play. The former does not dictate decisions to be made to the latter.

Again, all species and all individual brains have the same underlying quantum substructure but all brains produce decisions and behaviours according to their own architecture and condition. If a quantum event disrupts connectivity and produces a different outcome, this is not a decision that was made, nor is it 'free will'

 

[ryan]

Read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Ryan, there is absolutely nothing in that article (I have seen it before), that supports the idea that it is quantum entanglement or super position that processes information and makes decisions.

That is the role of neural architecture, entangled states probably play a part in synaptic clefts, enabling connectivity, etc, as both I and other posters have already pointed out, but particle entanglement or wave function doesn't decide whether you decide to marry your girlfriend, buy a house and have children.

You are confusing/conflating the quantum substructure/makeup of the components and their evolved function with the cognitive and decision making roles that they are structured by their very architecture to play. The former does not dictate decisions to be made to the latter.

Again, all species and all individual brains have the same underlying quantum substructure but all brains produce decisions and behaviours according to their own architecture and condition. If a quantum event disrupts connectivity and produces a different outcome, this is not a decision that was made, nor is it 'free will'

You said, "Superposition doesn't exist with cells". The article says, "a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite (technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state". And keep in mind that there is a "working definition" for QC. You are not seeing the connection here, or you don't want to.

DBT, I could show anyone this, and they will agree that your quote is contradicting the paper along with the working definition of QC. If you can't accept that you are contradicting the research with some of your last statements, then I don't think it makes any sense for me to continue this discussion.

 

[DBT]

Ryan, there is absolutely nothing in that article (I have seen it before), that supports the idea that it is quantum entanglement or super position that processes information and makes decisions.

That is the role of neural architecture, entangled states probably play a part in synaptic clefts, enabling connectivity, etc, as both I and other posters have already pointed out, but particle entanglement or wave function doesn't decide whether you decide to marry your girlfriend, buy a house and have children.

You are confusing/conflating the quantum substructure/makeup of the components and their evolved function with the cognitive and decision making roles that they are structured by their very architecture to play. The former does not dictate decisions to be made to the latter.

Again, all species and all individual brains have the same underlying quantum substructure but all brains produce decisions and behaviours according to their own architecture and condition. If a quantum event disrupts connectivity and produces a different outcome, this is not a decision that was made, nor is it 'free will'

You said, "Superposition doesn't exist with cells". The article says, "a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite (technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state". And keep in mind that there is a "working definition" for QC. You are not seeing the connection here, or you don't want to.

DBT, I could show anyone this, and they will agree that your quote is contradicting the paper along with the working definition of QC. If you can't accept that you are contradicting the research with some of your last statements, then I don't think it makes any sense for me to continue this discussion.

Give me one example of a cell in superposition and one example of a person (the whole organism) in a state of superposition.

The reference to ''an indefinite (technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state'' does not refer to wave superposition as demonstrated in double slit experiments. People or cells cannot be in superposition because the particles that make up the structure of their cells and bodies are in definite states.

You are misinterpreting both the references in the article, and what I said in order to support your own position...which is not supported by the articles.

Even if wave probability function was the agency of decision making, you as a conscious entity have no say or control over probabilistic outcomes. Hence no free will in that term of reference.

Not to mention that there are close to twenty interpretations of QM, some being entirely deterministic.

 

[ryan]

DBT, first came the verbal definition and description of what it means to decide. Then, in the past 50 years came the attempt to correlate a mechanical/operational definition, which continues to this day. If we find ourselves at a point in cognitive science that correlates a superposition to an indecisive decision - so be it. If that's where we are at, then that's where we are at. Nothing changes what it is. Maybe in 10 years it will change again, or maybe not. Don't get stuck in the past. Progress; move on.

 

[DBT]

DBT, first came the verbal definition and description of what it means to decide. Then, in the past 50 years came the attempt to correlate a mechanical/operational definition, which continues to this day. If we find ourselves at a point in cognitive science that correlates a superposition to an indecisive decision - so be it. If that's where we are at, then that's where we are at. Nothing changes what it is. Maybe in 10 years it will change again, or maybe not. Don't get stuck in the past. Progress; move on.

It's got nothing to do with being stuck in the past. The problem is your interpretation of the research, which does not refer to cells or people being in superposition like photons being fired through a double slit without a detector. Nor do probabilistic outcomes support your proposition of free will, for the reasons given throughout this thread and several others.

I suggest that you don't get stuck in believing that a failed proposition of free will based on quantum probability remains valid.


"There are two lines of thought when it comes to using quantum theory to describe cognitive processes," James M. Yearsley, a researcher in the Department of Psychology at City University London, told Phys.org. "The first is that some decision-making processes appear quantum because there are physical processes in the brain (at the level of neurons, etc.) that are quantum. This is very controversial and is a position held by only a minority. The second line of thought is that basic physical processes in the brain at the level of neurons are classical, and the (apparent) non-classical features of some human decision-making arises because of the complex way in which thoughts and feelings are related to basic brain processes. This is by far the more common viewpoint, and is the one we personally subscribe to."

 

[DBT]

Just look the meta-crock of some of this terminology. It hurts the eyes just to look at:

''The making of a decision collapses a thought wave into a particle, according to Jerome Busemeyer and Peter Bruza’s book Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. “We argue that the wave nature of an indefinite state captures the psychological experience of conflict, ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty; the particle nature of a definite state captures the psychological experience of conflict resolution, decision, and certainty,” they write.

The act of answering a question can move people from wave to particle, from uncertainty to certainty.''

Move people from wave to particle? Really? People in superposition? More like a state of baloney.

''Now, the reason why I don't think this article is that good is because it makes a number of either misleading, or strange errors.

Take, for example, the classic prisoner’s dilemma. Two criminals are offered the opportunity to rat each other out. If one rats, and the other doesn’t, the snitch goes free while the other serves a three-year sentence. If they both rat, they each get two years. If neither rats, they each get one year. If players always behaved in their own self-interest, they’d always rat. But research has shown that people often choose to cooperate.

Classical probability can’t explain this. If the first player knew for sure that the second was cooperating, it would make most sense to defect. If the first knew for sure that the second was defecting, it would also make most sense to defect. Since no matter what the other player is doing, it’s best to defect, then the first player should logically defect no matter what.

A quantum explanation for why player one might cooperate anyway would be that when one player is uncertain about what the other is doing, it’s like a Schrödinger’s cat situation. The other player has the potential to be cooperating and the potential to be defecting, at the same time, in the first player’s mind. Each of these possibilities is like a thought wave, Wang says. And as waves of all kinds (light, sound, water) are wont to do, they can interfere with each other. Depending on how they line up, the can cancel each other out to make a smaller wave, or build on each other to make a bigger one. If “the other guy’s going to cooperate” thought wave gets strengthened in a player’s mind, he might choose to cooperate too.

So you tell me if that made any sense or if this person has actually understood QM beyond what he read in a pop-science book. First of all, when wave cancellation occurs, it doesn't "make a smaller wave". It makes NO wave at that instant and time. Secondly, this person is espousing the existence of some kind of a "thought wave" that hasn't been verified, and somehow, the thought waves from the two different prisoners overlap each other (this, BTW, can be described via classical wave pictures, so why quantum picture in invoked here?).

But the fallacy comes in the claim that there is no other way to explain why different people act differently here without invoking quantum effects. Unlike physics systems where we can prepare two systems identically, we can find no such thing in human beings (even with twins!). Two different people have different backgrounds and "baggage". We have different ethics, moral standards, etc. You'll never find two identical systems to test this out. That's why we have 9 judges on the US Supreme Court, and they can have wildly differing opinions on the identical issue! So why can't they use this to explain why people react differently under this same situation? Why can't they find the answer via the human psychology rather than invoking QM?''

 

[bigfield]

Fisher describes a mechanism whereby quantum entanglement between pairs of 'Posner molecules' in different neurons creates a degree of synchronisation between the two neurons: when a Posner molecule in one neuron 'melts', it increases the likelihood that it's entangled mate will also melt, and this melting increases neurotransmitter activity. Very large numbers of these pairs must be present in order to create a significant effect.

Melting a Posner molecule causes a quantum measurement in its phosphate ions. The mechanism doesn't care which quantum state each phosphate assumes; it only matters that the measurement occurs. This triggers a reaction in the entangled phosphates which may be in other Posner molecules and in other neurons.

The result is the same regardless of whether any given phosphate ion assumes state A or state B. This rules out the possibility that the quantum states of the phosphate ions represent choices.

All it takes is one molecule to have a major impact on the future of the system. Think about Schrodinger's cat for example. Its body goes into a superposition because of one particle.

The mind actually gets to know "what this is like" and reports on the superposition in the form of indecisiveness (the important parts are in bold),

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Here you are repeating a mistake you've made previously, so allow me to refer to my previous response:

Also read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

Please stop conflating Wang et al's use of superposition with the quantum effect.

When Fisher says this:

To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of thephosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.

He is referring to the ability of many pairs of phosphates to form a wireless connection between two neurons.

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.

 

[ryan]

You said, "Superposition doesn't exist with cells". The article says, "a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite (technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state". And keep in mind that there is a "working definition" for QC. You are not seeing the connection here, or you don't want to.

DBT, I could show anyone this, and they will agree that your quote is contradicting the paper along with the working definition of QC. If you can't accept that you are contradicting the research with some of your last statements, then I don't think it makes any sense for me to continue this discussion.

Give me one example of a cell in superposition and one example of a person (the whole organism) in a state of superposition.

Like Schrodinger's cat, it is theoretically possible.

See the paper titled, "Quantum superposition, entanglement, and state teleportation of a microorganism on an electromechanical oscillator"

from https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.03763

The reference to ''an indefinite (technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state'' does not refer to wave superposition as demonstrated in double slit experiments. People or cells cannot be in superposition because the particles that make up the structure of their cells and bodies are in definite states.

That is so so so wrong DBT. Particles spend much of their time in a superposition. Even particles in the sun are in a superposition.

Now read any part of the working definition of QC, and you will see that superposition of particles is very much implied and relevant to thought processes.

Even if wave probability function was the agency of decision making, you as a conscious entity have no say or control over probabilistic outcomes. Hence no free will in that term of reference.

Now I have told you so many times that it is possible that if "you" = "if wave probability function", then you sentence would read: Even if you was the agency of decision making, you as a conscious entity have no say or control over probabilistic outcomes.

Not to mention that there are close to twenty interpretations of QM, some being entirely deterministic.

But I am not the one with certainty over one position.

 

[ryan]

DBT, first came the verbal definition and description of what it means to decide. Then, in the past 50 years came the attempt to correlate a mechanical/operational definition, which continues to this day. If we find ourselves at a point in cognitive science that correlates a superposition to an indecisive decision - so be it. If that's where we are at, then that's where we are at. Nothing changes what it is. Maybe in 10 years it will change again, or maybe not. Don't get stuck in the past. Progress; move on.

It's got nothing to do with being stuck in the past. The problem is your interpretation of the research, which does not refer to cells or people being in superposition like photons being fired through a double slit without a detector. Nor do probabilistic outcomes support your proposition of free will, for the reasons given throughout this thread and several others.

I suggest that you don't get stuck in believing that a failed proposition of free will based on quantum probability remains valid.

I don't believe it's true; I believe it's possible.

"There are two lines of thought when it comes to using quantum theory to describe cognitive processes," James M. Yearsley, a researcher in the Department of Psychology at City University London, told Phys.org. "The first is that some decision-making processes appear quantum because there are physical processes in the brain (at the level of neurons, etc.) that are quantum. This is very controversial and is a position held by only a minority. The second line of thought is that basic physical processes in the brain at the level of neurons are classical, and the (apparent) non-classical features of some human decision-making arises because of the complex way in which thoughts and feelings are related to basic brain processes. This is by far the more common viewpoint, and is the one we personally subscribe to."

View attachment 8284

 

[ryan]

Just look the meta-crock of some of this terminology. It hurts the eyes just to look at:

''The making of a decision collapses a thought wave into a particle, according to Jerome Busemeyer and Peter Bruza’s book Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. “We argue that the wave nature of an indefinite state captures the psychological experience of conflict, ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty; the particle nature of a definite state captures the psychological experience of conflict resolution, decision, and certainty,” they write.

The act of answering a question can move people from wave to particle, from uncertainty to certainty.''

Move people from wave to particle? Really? People in superposition? More like a state of baloney.

''Now, the reason why I don't think this article is that good is because it makes a number of either misleading, or strange errors.

Take, for example, the classic prisoner’s dilemma. Two criminals are offered the opportunity to rat each other out. If one rats, and the other doesn’t, the snitch goes free while the other serves a three-year sentence. If they both rat, they each get two years. If neither rats, they each get one year. If players always behaved in their own self-interest, they’d always rat. But research has shown that people often choose to cooperate.

Classical probability can’t explain this. If the first player knew for sure that the second was cooperating, it would make most sense to defect. If the first knew for sure that the second was defecting, it would also make most sense to defect. Since no matter what the other player is doing, it’s best to defect, then the first player should logically defect no matter what.

A quantum explanation for why player one might cooperate anyway would be that when one player is uncertain about what the other is doing, it’s like a Schrödinger’s cat situation. The other player has the potential to be cooperating and the potential to be defecting, at the same time, in the first player’s mind. Each of these possibilities is like a thought wave, Wang says. And as waves of all kinds (light, sound, water) are wont to do, they can interfere with each other. Depending on how they line up, the can cancel each other out to make a smaller wave, or build on each other to make a bigger one. If “the other guy’s going to cooperate” thought wave gets strengthened in a player’s mind, he might choose to cooperate too.

So you tell me if that made any sense or if this person has actually understood QM beyond what he read in a pop-science book. First of all, when wave cancellation occurs, it doesn't "make a smaller wave". It makes NO wave at that instant and time. Secondly, this person is espousing the existence of some kind of a "thought wave" that hasn't been verified, and somehow, the thought waves from the two different prisoners overlap each other (this, BTW, can be described via classical wave pictures, so why quantum picture in invoked here?).

But the fallacy comes in the claim that there is no other way to explain why different people act differently here without invoking quantum effects. Unlike physics systems where we can prepare two systems identically, we can find no such thing in human beings (even with twins!). Two different people have different backgrounds and "baggage". We have different ethics, moral standards, etc. You'll never find two identical systems to test this out. That's why we have 9 judges on the US Supreme Court, and they can have wildly differing opinions on the identical issue! So why can't they use this to explain why people react differently under this same situation? Why can't they find the answer via the human psychology rather than invoking QM?''

This person needs to "shut up and calculate".

 

[ryan]

All it takes is one molecule to have a major impact on the future of the system. Think about Schrodinger's cat for example. Its body goes into a superposition because of one particle.

The mind actually gets to know "what this is like" and reports on the superposition in the form of indecisiveness (the important parts are in bold),

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Here you are repeating a mistake you've made previously, so allow me to refer to my previous response:

Also read,

"In contrast, a quantum account allows a person to be in an indefinite
(technically, dispersive) state, called a superposition state, at each moment in time.
Strictly speaking, this means that one cannot assume that psychological states are characterized
by definite values to be registered by a psychological measurement at each
moment in time. To be in a superposition state means that all possible definite values
within the superposition have potential for being expressed at each moment (Heisenberg,
1958). A superposition state provides an intrinsic representation of the conflict, ambiguity,
or uncertainty that people experience in cognitive processes (Blutner, Bruza, & Pothos,
2013; Brainerd, Wang, & Reyna, 2013; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013). In this sense,
quantum modeling allows us to formalize the state of a cognitive system moving across
time in its state space (Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006, Atmanspacher & Filk,
2013; Fuss & Navarro, 2013) until a decision is reached, at which time the state collapses
to a definite value.".

from the scientific paper named "The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models
of Cognition".

from http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasi...antum-Theory-to-Build-Models-of-Cognition.pdf

Wang et al are not actually claiming that human decision-making is dependent on quantum effects; rather they are simply using quantum probability to model human cognition. Researchers in quantum cognition still consider cognition to be deterministic as neurons operate on a much larger scale than quantum effects.

Please stop conflating Wang et al's use of superposition with the quantum effect.

Quantum effects or not, the mind still reports what it's like to be in a superposition (a magical holistic account or a quantum brain, pick your poison). I am well aware that Wang's research does not speculate on whether or not the brain actually performs quantum computation as she even states in the research that I have posted. I am simply arguing with DBT that it might actually be quantum mechanisms. DBT doesn't seem to want to accept the possibility that the brain might be a quantum computer rather than a dynamically changing classical computer. This is a false sense of certainty unparalleled by the uncertain state of brain science itself.

When Fisher says this:

To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of thephosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.

He is referring to the ability of many pairs of phosphates to form a wireless connection between two neurons.

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.

But why do you say "single" when clearly there would be many more? Are you trying to say that each part must represent the whole? If so, that is not how the "mind" is analyzed parallel to the brain. One necessary Ca+ ion doesn't make a decision in classical cognitive models either.

I touched on this with DBT. The problem with classical mechanics and the mind is that there is a mysterious singular wholeness of what should be just an arbitrary group of discrete particles. An objectively arbitrary group of cells/particles gives rise to a magical new holistic existence they call the mind, which as far as I know is not reducible. Irreducibility does not sit well with science; it doesn't make sense classically.

But, entanglement seems to have a very nice and natural solution to this so-called hard problem. Entanglement is just as much a singular object as it is multiple components; it's both. We would objectively see different entities acting as one, just like we report with a singular mind.

And we need to be irreducible; meaning itself depends on it. Statements, concepts, truths/falsities, observations, thinking, etc. all need to be irreducible for there to be knowledge and for anything to make any sense. And we don't even get to say "well maybe nothing makes sense" because in order for even that to be true, we would be right about something therefor meaning would exist.

 

[bilby]

...

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

But why do you say "single" when clearly there would be many more? Are you trying to say that each part must represent the whole? If so, that is not how the "mind" is analyzed parallel to the brain. One necessary Ca+ ion doesn't make a decision in classical cognitive models either.

...

The aggregate result of many quantum events is the classical behaviour you are seeking to avoid.

When dealing with large numbers of quantum interactions, classical physics gives accurate answers - using quantum physics rather than classical physics to describe large numbers of quantum events is just working out the same results the hard way.

Either you need to show that single (or small numbers of) quantum events are relevant to decision making; or you are saying that quantum effects are irrelevant, as you are describing a system whose outputs can be determined using classical physics.

Or, to put it more crudely, the system you are interested in is too large for quantum effects to be relevant.

 

[ryan]

But why do you say "single" when clearly there would be many more? Are you trying to say that each part must represent the whole? If so, that is not how the "mind" is analyzed parallel to the brain. One necessary Ca+ ion doesn't make a decision in classical cognitive models either.

...

The aggregate result of many quantum events is the classical behaviour you are seeking to avoid.

When dealing with large numbers of quantum interactions, classical physics gives accurate answers - using quantum physics rather than classical physics to describe large numbers of quantum events is just working out the same results the hard way.

Either you need to show that single (or small numbers of) quantum events are relevant to decision making; or you are saying that quantum effects are irrelevant, as you are describing a system whose outputs can be determined using classical physics.

Or, to put it more crudely, the system you are interested in is too large for quantum effects to be relevant.

My argument is simply that it might be true that we could have chosen differently. That's what it was 2 years ago with DBT, and that is still what it still is.

The research paper from a possible working definition says, "If the phosphorus nuclear spins inside Posner molecules are playing a functional role in the brains of mammals (or, possibly, other vertebrates), then perturbations of the nuclear spins might have behavioral manifestations.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

 

[Juma]

The problem with classical mechanics and the mind is that there is a mysterious singular wholeness of what should be just an arbitrary group of discrete particles. An objectively arbitrary group of cells/particles gives rise to a magical new holistic existence they call the mind, which as far as I know is not reducible. Irreducibility does not sit well with science; it doesn't make sense classically.

But, entanglement seems to have a very nice and natural solution to this so-called hard proble

Then what a pity that you dont have such a single entanglement in the brain.

 

[ryan]

The problem with classical mechanics and the mind is that there is a mysterious singular wholeness of what should be just an arbitrary group of discrete particles. An objectively arbitrary group of cells/particles gives rise to a magical new holistic existence they call the mind, which as far as I know is not reducible. Irreducibility does not sit well with science; it doesn't make sense classically.

But, entanglement seems to have a very nice and natural solution to this so-called hard proble

Then what a pity that you dont have such a single entanglement in the brain.

Says who?

 

[DBT]

This person needs to "shut up and calculate".

Nah, you need to show a single example of a person or a cell that's in superposition like a photon describing interference patterns through the double slit without a detector.....then you may be onto something. But I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting.

You could stop avoiding the issue of all species and individual brains having the same quantum activity within synaptic clefts but the behaviour produced by each species and individual brains is unique to the architecture of the brain and not what is common to all brains, their quantum substructure.

 

[DBT]

My argument is simply that it might be true that we could have chosen differently. That's what it was 2 years ago with DBT, and that is still what it still is.

To which I pointed out, two years ago, that you have no awareness of the underlying mechanism and its electro-chemical and/or quantum activity, so you are not able to select options or make decisions at quantum or cellular level, and that whatever occurs is the only thing that could have occurred in that instance in time (you can't both sit and stand within the same instance in time, just one or the other) non-chosen and non-willed...and that is still what is.

 

[bigfield]

The aggregate result of many quantum events is the classical behaviour you are seeking to avoid.

When dealing with large numbers of quantum interactions, classical physics gives accurate answers - using quantum physics rather than classical physics to describe large numbers of quantum events is just working out the same results the hard way.

Either you need to show that single (or small numbers of) quantum events are relevant to decision making; or you are saying that quantum effects are irrelevant, as you are describing a system whose outputs can be determined using classical physics.

Or, to put it more crudely, the system you are interested in is too large for quantum effects to be relevant.

My argument is simply that it might be true that we could have chosen differently. That's what it was 2 years ago with DBT, and that is still what it still is.

The research paper from a possible working definition says, "If the phosphorus nuclear spins inside Posner molecules are playing a functional role in the brains of mammals (or, possibly, other vertebrates), then perturbations of the nuclear spins might have behavioral manifestations.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

If you read that statement in context, it's clear that Fisher is referring to the communication enabled by quantum entangled pairs of phosphates. Please stop this disingenuous quote-mining.

 

[ryan]

My argument is simply that it might be true that we could have chosen differently. That's what it was 2 years ago with DBT, and that is still what it still is.

The research paper from a possible working definition says, "If the phosphorus nuclear spins inside Posner molecules are playing a functional role in the brains of mammals (or, possibly, other vertebrates), then perturbations of the nuclear spins might have behavioral manifestations.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

If you read that statement in context, it's clear that Fisher is referring to the communication enabled by quantum entangled pairs of phosphates. Please stop this disingenuous quote-mining.

Read the rest of the post, and the whole post I gave to you.