Human Instinct and Free Will

[bigfield]

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.

You don't need to tell me to read posts; I have already read them.

 

[ryan]

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

You don't need to tell me to read posts; I have already read them.

So then you would know that I explained where at least I am at with this whole thing.

And as long as the parts "could have allowed me to choose otherwise" I still have an argument. And all I can do is take Fisher's word for it that QM processes would be "functionally relevant".

 

[ryan]

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.

Did you read the paper I linked to you of scientists preparing to put an organism into a superposition and even teleport it? If they think it's possible, then so do I since they are way more educated on this topic and involved in it than I am.

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, I wish you would explain why this is a problem for my argument. I really have no idea how you think this is a problem!

If it's because rabbits typically behave differently than humans, then I will make one final attempt to answer this.

The rabbit, being a much simpler creature, with QC would be like a broken calculator. There are some inputs and some random outputs while some outputs stay consistent . But it is still hardwired to function a certain way. And the outputs are constricted even though they have some freedom.

The human would work the same way but with a wider range of function ability. Some outputs stay consistent while others appear to be more random.

 

[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.

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, ...

But "choosing" or "selecting" has already been defined behaviorally. It's like saying that running doesn't exist. It is just a behavioral definition. The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

... 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.

Well, my argument uses a duality of deciding to stand or sit, not actually the act to sit and stand. Even Wang's research without quantum mechanics supports this. The research seems to imply that there are two modes of thought blending into one of indecisiveness.

And, like the research suggests including this (see the 5th and 6th slide) it's not just quick instances of sit then stand then sit then stand etc. It is actually a simultaneous or overlap of the two options blurred into one indecisive thought.

This - I would bet - is why scientists are starting to look for actual QM processes in the brain.

 

[Juma]

The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

So, no, "being able to choose differently" is a red herring, it diesnt nean anything.

 

[ryan]

The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

Nature and nurture put constraints and influences on us, no doubt. But for more unclear choices such as our clean conscience versus stealing, both having pros and cons, the research suggests that we have a superposition of those choices, QM or not, that simultaneously are being decided. From an observer, it appears to be just probabilistic. But the outcome will be in accordance to what the agent admittedly decided on.

I do need actual QM however, not just the math. CM will not allow me to have chosen differently from the time right before the decision. A certain process of QM allows this free will to adhere to the laws of physics. It seems at least possible so far.

 

[Treedbear]

... Free will definitions seem to be compatible with scientific terms: "the ability to have chosen differently". "Choose" can easily equal "decided". Now the definition becomes, "the ability to have decided differently".

It very clear that science has allowed free will to be a possibility.

Then why don't you say free will is "the possibility to have decided differently"? DBT might even agree with that since it seems to conform with quantum uncertainty. I think of the word "ability" as describing a particular case of what is possible, and implying there is a mechanism or agency involved. But there is no evidence for this other than what one "feels" about it. Science only speaks in terms of the possible and probable in the quantum world.

The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

So, no, "being able to choose differently" is a red herring, it diesnt nean anything.

Again, the words that science would use are "might have" instead of "could have" and "it being possible to" rather than "being able to". If that's how you stated it there would be no objection if we're assuming a brain could somehow make a quantum probability based macro choice. I don't think that's impossible, but I do think it's unnecessary in order for creative thinking to take place. Actually I think random or simply pseudo-random processes are indispensable for creativity. Just as mutation must precede natural selection for the emergence of new species, ideas and concepts evolve within the brain in a non-directed manner by virtue of the vast number of neurons and the thousands of connections each is capable of having. Just as in the natural world. All they need is an environment which rewards survival and the efficient use of resources and you have a viable ecosystem.

 

[ryan]

Then why don't you say free will is "the possibility to have decided differently"? DBT might even agree with that since it seems to conform with quantum uncertainty. I think of the word "ability" as describing a particular case of what is possible, and implying there is a mechanism or agency involved. But there is no evidence for this other than what one "feels" about it. Science only speaks in terms of the possible and probable in the quantum world.

What one feels is important information for behavioral science, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. It is important information and the origin of what it means to decide. It is the mechanics that has to explain a decision not the other way around.

The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

So, no, "being able to choose differently" is a red herring, it diesnt nean anything.

Again, the words that science would use are "might have" instead of "could have" and "it being possible to" rather than "being able to". If that's how you stated it there would be no objection if we're assuming a brain could somehow make a quantum probability based macro choice. I don't think that's impossible, but I do think it's unnecessary in order for creative thinking to take place. Actually I think random or simply pseudo-random processes are indispensable for creativity. Just as mutation must precede natural selection for the emergence of new species, ideas and concepts evolve within the brain in a non-directed manner by virtue of the vast number of neurons and the thousands of connections each is capable of having. Just as in the natural world. All they need is an environment which rewards survival and the efficient use of resources and you have a viable ecosystem.

Who is this part of your post intended for?

 

[DBT]

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.

Did you read the paper I linked to you of scientists preparing to put an organism into a superposition and even teleport it? If they think it's possible, then so do I since they are way more educated on this topic and involved in it than I am.

The largest object put into superposition is a buckyball, and that is the record. Superposition is difficult to maintain in the lab because any vibration collapses wave function.

Even if advances in technology reaches the point of macro scale superposition, this doesn't doesn't help you at all because the brain or any part of its architecture is not in superposition. Nor is this how memory function and information processing as carried out by neural networks works....as pointed out numerous times.

DBT, I wish you would explain why this is a problem for my argument. I really have no idea how you think this is a problem!

I have, but you apparently ignored what I said, making no comment. Now you ask the same question again. I don't want to have to keep repeating only to get no response but the same question asked a few days later

If it's because rabbits typically behave differently than humans, then I will make one final attempt to answer this.

The rabbit, being a much simpler creature, with QC would be like a broken calculator. There are some inputs and some random outputs while some outputs stay consistent . But it is still hardwired to function a certain way. And the outputs are constricted even though they have some freedom.

The human would work the same way but with a wider range of function ability. Some outputs stay consistent while others appear to be more random.

All brains are hardwired to function in a certain way, the greater the size and complexity, the greater the processing power, correlation of information, ability to recognise complex patterns, etc.

There is no ''freedom'' to be found that's beyond the capability of the architecture of a brain. A rabbit can never choose to learn calculus, for example.

 

[Juma]

Then why don't you say free will is "the possibility to have decided differently"? DBT might even agree with that since it seems to conform with quantum uncertainty. I think of the word "ability" as describing a particular case of what is possible, and implying there is a mechanism or agency involved. But there is no evidence for this other than what one "feels" about it. Science only speaks in terms of the possible and probable in the quantum world.

The freedom part comes in if the choice could have been made differently.

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

So, no, "being able to choose differently" is a red herring, it diesnt nean anything.

Again, the words that science would use are "might have" instead of "could have" and "it being possible to" rather than "being able to". If that's how you stated it there would be no objection if we're assuming a brain could somehow make a quantum probability based macro choice. I don't think that's impossible, but I do think it's unnecessary in order for creative thinking to take place. Actually I think random or simply pseudo-random processes are indispensable for creativity. Just as mutation must precede natural selection for the emergence of new species, ideas and concepts evolve within the brain in a non-directed manner by virtue of the vast number of neurons and the thousands of connections each is capable of having. Just as in the natural world. All they need is an environment which rewards survival and the efficient use of resources and you have a viable ecosystem.

Creativity has nothing to do with randomness. Creative processes are very efficient and information intensive. Definitely not random.

 

[Juma]

Lets look at this from the basics:

The reason we speak about "free will" is because it seems like the "I" make the choice. That "I" is a black box that can either choose to do the good or to do bad things. Thus has really nothing to do with the actual functions of the brain/mind.
It is only how it seems to us.
it seems to us that we are free to make any choice.
This is of course silly since our history, upbringingin etc specifies our values and it is from theese we draw our conclusions when we choose. If you value money more than the wellbeing of a unknown person and you dont are afraid of being caught you will steal his money. And you will not act differently if put in the exact same situatuation again. Why would you?

Nature and nurture put constraints and influences on us, no doubt. But for more unclear choices such as our clean conscience versus stealing, both having pros and cons, the research suggests that we have a superposition of those choices, QM or not, that simultaneously are being decided. From an observer, it appears to be just probabilistic. But the outcome will be in accordance to what the agent admittedly decided on.

I do need actual QM however, not just the math. CM will not allow me to have chosen differently from the time right before the decision. A certain process of QM allows this free will to adhere to the laws of physics. It seems at least possible so far.

The reason we talk about free will at all is to handle the quesion of how you can be responsible for your actions.

That is why the question of wether "you can have chosen otherwise" is important for the discussion of free will.

It is not enough that your choice is undecided and randomly becomes A or B.
If so you are acting randomly and should be put into safe custody and treatment.

To be responsible for an action, that action has to be intentional, willed. Not randomized.

 

[ryan]

If it's because rabbits typically behave differently than humans, then I will make one final attempt to answer this.

The rabbit, being a much simpler creature, with QC would be like a broken calculator. There are some inputs and some random outputs while some outputs stay consistent . But it is still hardwired to function a certain way. And the outputs are constricted even though they have some freedom.

The human would work the same way but with a wider range of function ability. Some outputs stay consistent while others appear to be more random.

All brains are hardwired to function in a certain way, the greater the size and complexity, the greater the processing power, correlation of information, ability to recognise complex patterns, etc.

There is no ''freedom'' to be found that's beyond the capability of the architecture of a brain. A rabbit can never choose to learn calculus, for example.

So I give an example about the kind of freedom I mean with a rabbit deciding to run east or west, and you say this? Not an acceptable response, you aren't reading my posts.

There's no point to move on.

 

[ryan]

Nature and nurture put constraints and influences on us, no doubt. But for more unclear choices such as our clean conscience versus stealing, both having pros and cons, the research suggests that we have a superposition of those choices, QM or not, that simultaneously are being decided. From an observer, it appears to be just probabilistic. But the outcome will be in accordance to what the agent admittedly decided on.

I do need actual QM however, not just the math. CM will not allow me to have chosen differently from the time right before the decision. A certain process of QM allows this free will to adhere to the laws of physics. It seems at least possible so far.

The reason we talk about free will at all is to handle the quesion of how you can be responsible for your actions.

That is why the question of wether "you can have chosen otherwise" is important for the discussion of free will.

It is not enough that your choice is undecided and randomly becomes A or B.
If so you are acting randomly and should be put into safe custody and treatment.

To be responsible for an action, that action has to be intentional, willed. Not randomized.

Free will or not, they still need to be "rehabilitated".

This is a scientific/physical version of free will. It was not meant to be a spiritual, dual or anything like that. That is why I started a that thread a long time ago that was only meant to discuss the scientific possibility of free will.

 

[Juma]

This is a scientific/physical version of free will. It was not meant to be a spiritual, dual or anything like that. That is why I started a that thread a long time ago that was only meant to discuss the scientific possibility of free will.

There is no such "scientific free will".

It is, as been shown, an altogether invalid and incoherent concept.

 

[ryan]

This is a scientific/physical version of free will. It was not meant to be a spiritual, dual or anything like that. That is why I started a that thread a long time ago that was only meant to discuss the scientific possibility of free will.

There is no such "scientific free will".

It is, as been shown, an altogether invalid and incoherent concept.

I should be more clear.

As far as anything I have read on this thread and elsewhere, science allows the possibility for free will.

 

[DBT]

All brains are hardwired to function in a certain way, the greater the size and complexity, the greater the processing power, correlation of information, ability to recognise complex patterns, etc.

There is no ''freedom'' to be found that's beyond the capability of the architecture of a brain. A rabbit can never choose to learn calculus, for example.

So I give an example about the kind of freedom I mean with a rabbit deciding to run east or west, and you say this? Not an acceptable response, you aren't reading my posts.

There's no point to move on.

The brain of the rabbit decides to run east or west based on an inherit set of criteria, its nest may lie to the west and its in danger, a fox is bearing down on it from the east, so it bolts west for its hole. All performed by the rabbit brain from the point where light entered the retinas conveying information of danger...and not quantum probability wave function effecting behaviour upon the rabbit/brain.

Even if the decision had gone the other way, the rabbit turning east through a random event within its brain, this is not a 'freely willed decision' because it's not willed at all.

Both examples are reactions to stimuli or non chosen physical conditions within the brain.

The term 'free will' conveys no useful information about decision making and behaviour. It is redundant.

 

[ryan]

So I give an example about the kind of freedom I mean with a rabbit deciding to run east or west, and you say this? Not an acceptable response, you aren't reading my posts.

There's no point to move on.

The brain of the rabbit decides to run east or west based on an inherit set of criteria, its nest may lie to the west and its in danger, a fox is bearing down on it from the east, so it bolts west for its hole. All performed by the rabbit brain from the point where light entered the retinas conveying information of danger...and not quantum probability wave function effecting behaviour upon the rabbit/brain.

Even if the decision had gone the other way, the rabbit turning east through a random event within its brain, this is not a 'freely willed decision' because it's not willed at all.

Both examples are reactions to stimuli or non chosen physical conditions within the brain

But you are just forcing your side of the argument.

And do you not accept that life can make choices/decisions free or not?

 

[bigfield]

You don't need to tell me to read posts; I have already read them.

So then you would know that I explained where at least I am at with this whole thing.

And as long as the parts "could have allowed me to choose otherwise" I still have an argument. And all I can do is take Fisher's word for it that QM processes would be "functionally relevant".

Your argument, as I understand it, is that quantum effects in the brain somehow mean that human cognition is not deterministic (i.e. it cannot be explained by classical physics), and you take that to be 'free will'.

The evidence you've presented (Fisher) does not support the premise that human cognition is not deterministic. If you can't support your premise then your argument isn't sound.

 

[ryan]

So then you would know that I explained where at least I am at with this whole thing.

And as long as the parts "could have allowed me to choose otherwise" I still have an argument. And all I can do is take Fisher's word for it that QM processes would be "functionally relevant".

Your argument, as I understand it, is that quantum effects in the brain somehow mean that human cognition is not deterministic (i.e. it cannot be explained by classical physics), and you take that to be 'free will'.

The evidence you've presented (Fisher) does not support the premise that human cognition is not deterministic. If you can't support your premise then your argument isn't sound.

If there are quantum processes in the brain, don't you think that the brain would behave differently than if they were just classical processes?

 

[bilby]

Your argument, as I understand it, is that quantum effects in the brain somehow mean that human cognition is not deterministic (i.e. it cannot be explained by classical physics), and you take that to be 'free will'.

The evidence you've presented (Fisher) does not support the premise that human cognition is not deterministic. If you can't support your premise then your argument isn't sound.

If there are quantum processes in the brain, don't you think that the brain would behave differently than if they were just classical processes?

That's ridiculous.

EVERYTHING, whether or not it is in a brain, is quantum processes.

Classical processes are simply excellent approximations of large numbers of quantum processes.

They are not different things. They are merely different levels of accuracy. For large structures (ie larger than a few molecules), the errors in the classical results are too small to bother with, so we use the classical results for our predictions to keep the maths manageable.