Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

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?

I am describing inputs, neural network information processing/memory function decision making and response according to the evidence, memory function breakdown destroying the decision making process, etc, etc, and not 'forcing my side of the argument'

I don't even know what ''life can make choices/decisions free'' is supposed to mean... if 'life' means non chosen events altering the normal progress of decision making within the architecture of the brain, this neither choice or 'freedom'

 

[ryan]

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.

Classical physics is not quantum physics.

Quantum processes are different than classical processes. Entanglement, for example, is not a classical process.

 

[ryan]

But you are just forcing your side of the argument.

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

I am describing inputs, neural network information processing/memory function decision making and response according to the evidence, memory function breakdown destroying the decision making process, etc, etc, and not 'forcing my side of the argument'

Yes, you are describing an objective and reductionistic attempt to account for what we call a decision. Behavioral science was first, then came the neuroscience to try to account for the thing we understand to be a decision.

I don't even know what ''life can make choices/decisions free'' is supposed to mean... if 'life' means non chosen events altering the normal progress of decision making within the architecture of the brain, this neither choice or 'freedom'

The decision is the thing that is assumed to exist for sure. The account of it is the challenge, and not the other way around.

 

[Juma]

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.

Which is as silly as saying that science allows the possibiliy that all men are created equal.

"Free will" has nothing to do with how we actually work.

 

[bigfield]

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?

Quantum mechanics provides the most accurate description of natural phenomena at and below the scale of small molecules, but classical mechanics adequately describes natural phenomena in larger scale systems, such as the scale of a neuron.

The integrated circuit is such a system: the behaviour of individual semiconductors are most accurately and precisely described using quantum mechanics, but the behaviour of the integrated circuit as a whole can be described--and predicted--by some relatively simple rules. While human neurons may be more difficult to describe due to their relative complexity, the mere existence of entangled phosphates does not make neurons unpredictable.

 

[ryan]

I should be more clear.

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

Which is as silly as saying that science allows the possibiliy that all men are created equal.

But then you are just going to an extreme.

 

[Juma]

Which is as silly as saying that science allows the possibiliy that all men are created equal.

But then you are just going to an extreme.

Havent you read my posts at all?

 

[Treedbear]

... 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.

You also posted:

Also, why don't we just raise a robot that does exactly what we want them to do in every possible situation? But we won't get much more creativity outside of what its makers brain can think of. There won't be much more originality for every possible industry and milieu that is beyond the minds of the makers.

How could we ever trust that we have the best solution to every possible problem that a child will come into? Randomness accidentally shows us better ways; it's like an evolution. We learn from the mistakes, and we keep what works. After a billion years, maybe there will be a god-like being capable of installing the "right" information into another being that will be the best for everyone in every situation.

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

You seem to have a typo in the last reply so I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant. But I think Ryan makes an important point (bolded). Randomness plays an important role in creativity. When you say "[has the] ability to see many solutions" where do these solutions come from? How are they generated? I worked as an engineering aide for many years and what I've constantly seen is the attempt to use an old solution only to have to tweak and modify until you come up with a novel approach that works. Ideas don't just appear like a burger and fries at the drive-up window. That's the primary mistake made by intelligent design proponents. Design always requires trial and error. Random generation of ideas and then "filter out the uninteresting ones". Ideas evolve; on the lab bench as well as inside the heads of engineers through both conscious thought and intuition.

And to Ryan's point about the robot: If a robot's computer brain had the ability to generate pseudo-random modifications to a problem (engineering or otherwise) and then test them out and measure the results in a relative manner it could create something new. In fact this has already been done.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population. This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end. Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science.

These algorithms, called evolutionary algorithms, are based on adopting Darwinian principles, hence the name.

 

[Juma]

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

You also posted:

Also, why don't we just raise a robot that does exactly what we want them to do in every possible situation? But we won't get much more creativity outside of what its makers brain can think of. There won't be much more originality for every possible industry and milieu that is beyond the minds of the makers.

How could we ever trust that we have the best solution to every possible problem that a child will come into? Randomness accidentally shows us better ways; it's like an evolution. We learn from the mistakes, and we keep what works. After a billion years, maybe there will be a god-like being capable of installing the "right" information into another being that will be the best for everyone in every situation.

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

You seem to have a typo in the last reply so I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant. But I think Ryan makes an important point (bolded). Randomness plays an important role in creativity. When you say "[has the] ability to see many solutions" where do these solutions come from? How are they generated? I worked as an engineering aide for many years and what I've constantly seen is the attempt to use an old solution only to have to tweak and modify until you come up with a novel approach that works. Ideas don't just appear like a burger and fries at the drive-up window. That's the primary mistake made by intelligent design proponents. Design always requires trial and error. Random generation of ideas and then "filter out the uninteresting ones". Ideas evolve; on the lab bench as well as inside the heads of engineers through both conscious thought and intuition.

And to Ryan's point about the robot: If a robot's computer brain had the ability to generate pseudo-random modifications to a problem (engineering or otherwise) and then test them out and measure the results in a relative manner it could create something new. In fact this has already been done.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population. This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end. Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science.

These algorithms, called evolutionary algorithms, are based on adopting Darwinian principles, hence the name.

Evolution doesnt not work by random.
The randomization is just one way of presenting diversion, there is nothing principally important that input is randomized. The important factor in evolution is the selection principles, and a broad input, not randomization.

 

[ryan]

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?

Quantum mechanics provides the most accurate description of natural phenomena at and below the scale of small molecules, but classical mechanics adequately describes natural phenomena in larger scale systems, such as the scale of a neuron.

The integrated circuit is such a system: the behaviour of individual semiconductors are most accurately and precisely described using quantum mechanics, but the behaviour of the integrated circuit as a whole can be described--and predicted--by some relatively simple rules. While human neurons may be more difficult to describe due to their relative complexity, the mere existence of entangled phosphates does not make neurons unpredictable.

There are systems that generally abide by classical mechanics that have QM foundations like with your example. And then there are systems, like Schrodinger's cat, that have QM foundations but also have QM outcomes (non-classical systems). The possibility that neurons firing depend on entangled superposition states of other molecules is an example of a QM process (non-classical system).

Even though the neuron as a whole is at a large enough scale not to be in a QM state itself, the relevant function of it is in a probabilistic state. Whether the neuron fires or not is ultimately up to the unknown nature of QM.

 

[untermensche]

Free will, if it exists, is about using the will to direct "action" and carry out "action".

If there is uncertainty then the chain of action will be broken.

What is needed for there to be free will is certainty.

 

[bilby]

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.

Classical physics is not quantum physics.

Quantum processes are different than classical processes. Entanglement, for example, is not a classical process.

Der.

Classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics. It works very well indeed at large scales; Which is a good thing because the maths would be fucking impossible otherwise.

They are different; but they are NOT completely different. If it wasn't valid to approximate the aggregate behaviour of large numbers of quantum interactions using the techniques we call 'classical physics', then classical physics wouldn't work, the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened, and we would not be having this conversation because we would be too busy copying the Bible with quill pens and dying of plague.

At sufficiently small scales, the variance between the results of classical physics and observed reality become large enough to be important; and at that point, we need to use quantum physics to get good predictions. Above those very small scales, both systems give identical results (to within our ability to measure), so we use the easier one.

Your argument here relies on the belief that the results from QM will be significantly different than those given by classical mechanics, in large structures (ie larger than molecules), such as synapses, neurons, or even entire brains. That belief is completely unsupported, and you have nothing other than your wish that it were so to back it up. In ALL other cases, the maintenance of a detectable difference between QM and CM results at such large scales requires incredibly stable and controlled environments (and even then is very hard to do indeed).

You are asserting that it can happen in the messy, crowded and warm environment that is a biological brain. That's an extraordinary claim; but not only do you not have the requisite extraordinary evidence for it - you have none at all - just wishful thinking.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Evolution doesnt not work by random.
The randomization is just one way of presenting diversion, there is nothing principally important that input is randomized. The important factor in evolution is the selection principles, and a broad input, not randomization.

Biological evolution in nature is dependent on genetic mutation, which is random. That is how nature produces diversity within species. Natural selection is not random. Together with heredity they comprise evolution. To the extent that a broad input is non-random it is not diverse. To the extent that any particular instance is not random it is not unique, and therefore not the basis of creativity.

 

[ryan]

Free will, if it exists, is about using the will to direct "action" and carry out "action".

Keep in mind that free will is the ability to have chosen/acted/done differently.

If there is uncertainty then the chain of action will be broken.

What is needed for there to be free will is certainty.

For less obvious decisions that we have to eventually make, quantum cognition claims that there is a mathematical superposition between, say, choices A or B. The agent will eventually make a choice between A and B and will report that the outcome matches the intended, or as you mentioned, directed choice.

IF the brain actually functions by way of quantum processes, then mechanically speaking, an outside observer will also see no reason why the agent could not have chosen differently . There is at least one possible working definition for QC that I know of that uses quantum processes; I can post it if you want.

My argument is that free will is still possible, perhaps seems even more possible that it was 100 years ago.

 

[ryan]

Classical physics is not quantum physics.

Quantum processes are different than classical processes. Entanglement, for example, is not a classical process.

Der.

Classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics. It works very well indeed at large scales; Which is a good thing because the maths would be fucking impossible otherwise.

They are different; but they are NOT completely different. If it wasn't valid to approximate the aggregate behaviour of large numbers of quantum interactions using the techniques we call 'classical physics', then classical physics wouldn't work, the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened, and we would not be having this conversation because we would be too busy copying the Bible with quill pens and dying of plague.

At sufficiently small scales, the variance between the results of classical physics and observed reality become large enough to be important; and at that point, we need to use quantum physics to get good predictions. Above those very small scales, both systems give identical results (to within our ability to measure), so we use the easier one.

Your argument here relies on the belief that the results from QM will be significantly different than those given by classical mechanics, in large structures (ie larger than molecules), such as synapses, neurons, or even entire brains. That belief is completely unsupported, and you have nothing other than your wish that it were so to back it up. In ALL other cases, the maintenance of a detectable difference between QM and CM results at such large scales requires incredibly stable and controlled environments (and even then is very hard to do indeed).

You are asserting that it can happen in the messy, crowded and warm environment that is a biological brain. That's an extraordinary claim; but not only do you not have the requisite extraordinary evidence for it - you have none at all - just wishful thinking.

This is so painful bilby; it's just so painful.

 

[untermensche]

Keep in mind that free will is the ability to have chosen/acted/done differently.

If there is uncertainty then the chain of action will be broken.

What is needed for there to be free will is certainty.

For less obvious decisions that we have to eventually make, quantum cognition claims that there is a mathematical superposition between, say, choices A or B. The agent will eventually make a choice between A and B and will report that the outcome matches the intended, or as you mentioned, directed choice.

IF the brain actually functions by way of quantum processes, then mechanically speaking, an outside observer will also see no reason why the agent could not have chosen differently . There is at least one possible working definition for QC that I know of that uses quantum processes; I can post it if you want.

My argument is that free will is still possible, perhaps seems even more possible that it was 100 years ago.

You can't remove any quantum effects from what is happening in the brain. But actually trying to understand the conglomeration of quantum effects is beyond human abilities at this point. There really is no place to even start looking.

But ultimately if a mind is going to make a free choice you need a mechanism for a mind to make it.

That mechanism may be some kind of quantum effect.

That is as far as that hypothesis goes however. Extraordinarily unsupported.

 

[ryan]

Keep in mind that free will is the ability to have chosen/acted/done differently.



For less obvious decisions that we have to eventually make, quantum cognition claims that there is a mathematical superposition between, say, choices A or B. The agent will eventually make a choice between A and B and will report that the outcome matches the intended, or as you mentioned, directed choice.

IF the brain actually functions by way of quantum processes, then mechanically speaking, an outside observer will also see no reason why the agent could not have chosen differently . There is at least one possible working definition for QC that I know of that uses quantum processes; I can post it if you want.

My argument is that free will is still possible, perhaps seems even more possible that it was 100 years ago.

Extraordinarily unsupported.

I respect you more than bilby, but you come off here just as arrogant. Just because you don't know about something does not mean you can just give these kinds of statements. When did you stop trying to learn and start pretending that you know it all? This is an all too common theme on TF, but you are not nearly as bad as others.

Anyways, if you are interested in stepping outside of yourself, you may want to read, https://www.elsevier.com/about/pres...roversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

Stay humble and keep learning.

 

[DBT]

I am describing inputs, neural network information processing/memory function decision making and response according to the evidence, memory function breakdown destroying the decision making process, etc, etc, and not 'forcing my side of the argument'

Yes, you are describing an objective and reductionistic attempt to account for what we call a decision. Behavioral science was first, then came the neuroscience to try to account for the thing we understand to be a decision.

I think that the charge of 'reductionism' is a ploy to avoid the fact that it is the brain of the rabbit that gathers information from its senses, processes that information, forms a mental picture of its surroundings and respond accordingly....accordingly doesn't mean a quantum superposition within a synaptic cleft changes the option of running for its burrow to escape the fox, but its recognition of danger and the prospect of the safety of the burrow. A decision made on a set of criteria: immanent danger, safety to be found in a burrow, etc.

This is not reductionist. Reductionism is claiming that quantum conditions, superposition, entanglement, allow an alternative (which would not be a decision) to the decision made according to the criteria, a rational decision.

The decision is the thing that is assumed to exist for sure. The account of it is the challenge, and not the other way around.

You can't account for decisions without reference to the mechanisms of decision making, the evolutionary criteria, etc. Superposition and entanglement does not make decisions, brains as information processors do.

 

[ryan]

Yes, you are describing an objective and reductionistic attempt to account for what we call a decision. Behavioral science was first, then came the neuroscience to try to account for the thing we understand to be a decision.

I think that the charge of 'reductionism' is a ploy to avoid the fact that it is the brain of the rabbit that gathers information from its senses, processes that information, forms a mental picture of its surroundings and respond accordingly....accordingly doesn't mean a quantum superposition within a synaptic cleft changes the option of running for its burrow to escape the fox, but its recognition of danger and the prospect of the safety of the burrow. A decision made on a set of criteria: immanent danger, safety to be found in a burrow, etc.

This is not reductionist. Reductionism is claiming that quantum conditions, superposition, entanglement, allow an alternative (which would not be a decision) to the decision made according to the criteria, a rational decision.

Yes, decisions A and B can be in a superposition in the consciousness, according to Wang's research. The consciousness can select either choice which may be mechanically possible by using a working definition of QC.

The decision is the thing that is assumed to exist for sure. The account of it is the challenge, and not the other way around.

You can't account for decisions without reference to the mechanisms of decision making, the evolutionary criteria, etc. Superposition and entanglement does not make decisions, brains as information processors do.

I agree, but the "flexibility" of the quantum mechanisms may allow me to choose otherwise.

If I want to push a 2-way door open, I could have pulled too, QM. If I want to push a one-way (pull only) door open, I can't, CM.

 

[DBT]

I think that the charge of 'reductionism' is a ploy to avoid the fact that it is the brain of the rabbit that gathers information from its senses, processes that information, forms a mental picture of its surroundings and respond accordingly....accordingly doesn't mean a quantum superposition within a synaptic cleft changes the option of running for its burrow to escape the fox, but its recognition of danger and the prospect of the safety of the burrow. A decision made on a set of criteria: immanent danger, safety to be found in a burrow, etc.

This is not reductionist. Reductionism is claiming that quantum conditions, superposition, entanglement, allow an alternative (which would not be a decision) to the decision made according to the criteria, a rational decision.

Yes, decisions A and B can be in a superposition in the consciousness, according to Wang's research. The consciousness can select either choice which may be mechanically possible by using a working definition of QC

Hasn't it been pointed our enough times that it isn't the decision that is in superposition, or the neural networks that perform the function, only that quantum effect enable connectivity, therefore the brain to carry out its correlation and calculation as an information processor?

Ryan, why do you maintain something that is not supported by the research? Decisions are not quantum particles in superposition.

Decision making by the brain relate to objective options, run from danger, head for your burrow in the case of the rabbit, being presented by the conditions in the macro world.

I agree, but the "flexibility" of the quantum mechanisms may allow me to choose otherwise.

You have no control over superposition where wave function collapses probabilistically (depending on your interpretation of QM), therefore you have no choice as to the outcome.

Why do you keep calling this a choice?

If I want to push a 2-way door open, I could have pulled too, QM. If I want to push a one-way (pull only) door open, I can't, CM.

Not both at the same time. What you do is a matter of brain state in the instance in time when information achieves readiness potential (unconscious) and the decision is experienced in conscious form. Prior to that you have no awareness. You are only aware of the thought emerging consciously with the motor action being performed.