Human Instinct and Free Will

[bigfield]

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).

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, not a real experiment.

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.

In Fisher's proposed mechanism, when the first neuron fires, the connection is triggered and then the second neuron fires. One doesn't need QM to describe that system, just as one doesn't need QM to describe the function of an integrated circuit.

 

[Juma]

...
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.

Bullshit. It is easy to create something unique without resorting to randomizing.

As an example: GUIDs (global unique identifiers are createdby deterministic algorithms.

I believe that you are mistaking complex and diverse for random.

 

[untermensche]

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.

It is not arrogance. It is the unwillingness to take mere topics of discussion as actual explanations of phenomena.

As I said, you can't subtract any quantum effects from the matter that makes up the brain.

So finding some quantum effect, like so-called quantum vibrations, is not surprising.

Nor does it explain one thing.

But the quantum effects occurring in the brain are more complicated than the physiology which is incredibly complex.

And we can't make sense of the physiology.

It is therefore impossible to make sense of something more complex and far less apparent, like quantum effects.

It is not a real discussion. It is an empty hypothesis that may be true or not but we are miles from being able to determine anything about it.

It is really a discussion for pseudo science or philosophy at this point. There is the science of quantum mechanics and the reality of the brain but not one fact connecting the two other than the brain which is made up of matter will show quantum effects whether they serve a purpose or not.

That is as far as the discussion goes.

 

[ryan]

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?

DBT, this part of the discussion is over. I have already tried to give you this link to see slides 4, 5 and 6 , but clearly you either haven't read them or accepted them.

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

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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.

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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?

You think I am arguing for a choice within a choice, but that is not what I am arguing for. First there is DBT's deciding, then there is the decision. DBT may have chosen differently; the underlying mechanics support that this would have been mechanically possible - not the other way around.

 

[Juma]

may have chosen differently; the underlying mechanics support that this would have been mechanically possible - not the other way around.

Again: no it doesnt. Rolling dice is not to decide.

 

[ryan]

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).

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, not a real experiment.

The point was to show what one particle can do if in the right place.

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.

In Fisher's proposed mechanism, when the first neuron fires, the connection is triggered and then the second neuron fires. One doesn't need QM to describe that system, just as one doesn't need QM to describe the function of an integrated circuit.

It seems like the point of the paper is that there may be multiple neurons entangled into a probabilistic state.

"A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain.".

 

[ryan]

may have chosen differently; the underlying mechanics support that this would have been mechanically possible - not the other way around.

Again: no it doesnt. Rolling dice is not to decide.

When you role a die that will decide a decision for you, do you feel like you had more control over that decision than if you would have just made the decision without the die? Behavioral science can't get into the philosophy of the gaps; there is just a subject and a subject making a choice. The gaps are for philosophy to decide on. That is why I discuss this in scientific threads.

 

[ryan]

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.

It is not arrogance. It is the unwillingness to take mere topics of discussion as actual explanations of phenomena.

As I said, you can't subtract any quantum effects from the matter that makes up the brain.

So finding some quantum effect, like so-called quantum vibrations, is not surprising.

Nor does it explain one thing.

But the quantum effects occurring in the brain are more complicated than the physiology which is incredibly complex.

And we can't make sense of the physiology.

It is therefore impossible to make sense of something more complex and far less apparent, like quantum effects.

It is not a real discussion. It is an empty hypothesis that may be true or not but we are miles from being able to determine anything about it.

It is really a discussion for pseudo science or philosophy at this point. There is the science of quantum mechanics and the reality of the brain but not one fact connecting the two other than the brain which is made up of matter will show quantum effects whether they serve a purpose or not.

That is as far as the discussion goes.

It is acting arrogant even if you really do have the right answer; you might not be noticing this. You come into a discussion that I am 2 years into, and with an omniscient-like attitude announce that everything that I am talking about - for 2 years - is extraordinarily unsupported.

I am talking about this subject in a scientific thread on purpose; it is because I am ONLY using science to back up my claims that free will is possible. None of what I say is suppose to be a philosophical argument. I am simply laying out the scientific parameters that may or may not allow free will to be possible.

If you go back to page 53 of this thread, you will see a perfect way of entering a discussion from bigfield. Maybe biting his/her tongue, and understandably so, gets right into the argument with critiques/concerns. That is a proper and respectful way to discuss something if you want the other person to take you seriously.

 

[untermensche]

It is not arrogance. It is the unwillingness to take mere topics of discussion as actual explanations of phenomena.

As I said, you can't subtract any quantum effects from the matter that makes up the brain.

So finding some quantum effect, like so-called quantum vibrations, is not surprising.

Nor does it explain one thing.

But the quantum effects occurring in the brain are more complicated than the physiology which is incredibly complex.

And we can't make sense of the physiology.

It is therefore impossible to make sense of something more complex and far less apparent, like quantum effects.

It is not a real discussion. It is an empty hypothesis that may be true or not but we are miles from being able to determine anything about it.

It is really a discussion for pseudo science or philosophy at this point. There is the science of quantum mechanics and the reality of the brain but not one fact connecting the two other than the brain which is made up of matter will show quantum effects whether they serve a purpose or not.

That is as far as the discussion goes.

It is acting arrogant even if you really do have the right answer; you might not be noticing this. You come into a discussion that I am 2 years into, and with an omniscient-like attitude announce that everything that I am talking about - for 2 years - is extraordinarily unsupported.

I am talking about this subject in a scientific thread on purpose; it is because I am ONLY using science to back up my claims that free will is possible. None of what I say is suppose to be a philosophical argument. I am simply laying out the scientific parameters that may or may not allow free will to be possible.

If you go back to page 53 of this thread, you will see a perfect way of entering a discussion from bigfield. Maybe biting his/her tongue, and understandably so, gets right into the argument with critiques/concerns. That is a proper and respectful way to discuss something if you want the other person to take you seriously.

I was being nice.

This is TOTAL nonsense. It is really bad and the people who engage on this issue are engaging in nonsense.

It's like saying: "There are black holes and there is consciousness. Maybe black holes have something to do with consciousness?" "There is melba toast. Maybe melba toast has something to do with consciousness?"

We have some understanding of quantum effects in a few isolated cases.

We have some understanding of brain physiology but no understanding of the mechanics of consciousness.

And NOTHING to connect these two topics.

Your ability to engage in nonsense for years is not impressive or a sign of anything beyond you.

 

[ryan]

It is acting arrogant even if you really do have the right answer; you might not be noticing this. You come into a discussion that I am 2 years into, and with an omniscient-like attitude announce that everything that I am talking about - for 2 years - is extraordinarily unsupported.

I am talking about this subject in a scientific thread on purpose; it is because I am ONLY using science to back up my claims that free will is possible. None of what I say is suppose to be a philosophical argument. I am simply laying out the scientific parameters that may or may not allow free will to be possible.

If you go back to page 53 of this thread, you will see a perfect way of entering a discussion from bigfield. Maybe biting his/her tongue, and understandably so, gets right into the argument with critiques/concerns. That is a proper and respectful way to discuss something if you want the other person to take you seriously.

I was being nice.

This is TOTAL nonsense. It is really bad and the people who engage on this issue are engaging in nonsense.

It's like saying: "There are black holes and there is consciousness. Maybe black holes have something to do with consciousness?" "There is melba toast. Maybe melba toast has something to do with consciousness?"

We have some understanding of quantum effects in a few isolated cases.

We have some understanding of brain physiology but no understanding of the mechanics of consciousness.

And NOTHING to connect these two topics.

Your ability to engage in nonsense for years is not impressive or a sign of anything beyond you.

You must not have read my post. Even if you are right, you offer nothing other than your very very very broad conclusions.

What is anyone suppose to make of this other than wild arrogance.

 

[bigfield]

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, not a real experiment.

The point was to show what one particle can do if in the right place.

I thought the point was to provide an example of a system that cannot be described accurately using classical mechanics:

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).

The most complex structure to be put into quantum superposition in an experiment is a buckyball.

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.

In Fisher's proposed mechanism, when the first neuron fires, the connection is triggered and then the second neuron fires. One doesn't need QM to describe that system, just as one doesn't need QM to describe the function of an integrated circuit.

It seems like the point of the paper is that there may be multiple neurons entangled into a probabilistic state.

"A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain.".

While I agree that Fisher's mechanism isn't restricted to linking just two neurons, it is incorrect to say that the neurons are "entangled into a probabilistic state". The entanglement is performed on pairs phosphate ions, not on pairs of entire neurons.

 

[DBT]

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?

DBT, this part of the discussion is over. I have already tried to give you this link to see slides 4, 5 and 6 , but clearly you either haven't read them or accepted them.

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

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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.

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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?

You think I am arguing for a choice within a choice, but that is not what I am arguing for. First there is DBT's deciding, then there is the decision. DBT may have chosen differently; the underlying mechanics support that this would have been mechanically possible - not the other way around.

Again, the research you refer to does not support your proposition, for the reasons repeatedly given by several posters, including me.

Instead of just posting links to research that proposed quantum effects at synaptic junctions as a part of brain function, which nobody is disputing the possibility but doesn't support these effects alone as a means of decision making, which requires macro scale neurons, dendrites, axons, etc as an information processing mechanism, why don't you address the examples I gave in your own words?

 

[untermensche]

I was being nice.

This is TOTAL nonsense. It is really bad and the people who engage on this issue are engaging in nonsense.

It's like saying: "There are black holes and there is consciousness. Maybe black holes have something to do with consciousness?" "There is melba toast. Maybe melba toast has something to do with consciousness?"

We have some understanding of quantum effects in a few isolated cases.

We have some understanding of brain physiology but no understanding of the mechanics of consciousness.

And NOTHING to connect these two topics.

Your ability to engage in nonsense for years is not impressive or a sign of anything beyond you.

You must not have read my post. Even if you are right, you offer nothing other than your very very very broad conclusions.

What is anyone suppose to make of this other than wild arrogance.

Wild speculation has to be connected in some way to reality. You have failed miserably to do so.

Decisions in the world involve ideas about the world.

Quantum effects are just that, effects.

They have no connection to a brain making decisions in a world. Which is not an effect. It is a purposeful process.

The brain (mind) behaves purposefully. It has to survive.

Purposeful decision making has no connection to any quantum effect.

 

[Juma]

Again: no it doesnt. Rolling dice is not to decide.

When you role a die that will decide a decision for you, do you feel like you had more control over that decision than if you would have just made the decision without the die?.

You mad? Of course i have more control if I dont have to rely on the result of thrown dices.

 

[ryan]

The point was to show what one particle can do if in the right place.

I thought the point was to provide an example of a system that cannot be described accurately using classical mechanics:

That's a whole other argument that hasn't been settled. If your cat is in a room and the only thing blocking poison is a 50/50 chance of decay in the next minute, you better hope the odds are on its side.

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).

The most complex structure to be put into quantum superposition in an experiment is a buckyball.

That's the most complicated thing mankind has been able to observe. Theoretically, quantum computers have no limits on how complex its processes can be. Moreover, it can argued that the entire universe is a quantum computer. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4455

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.

In Fisher's proposed mechanism, when the first neuron fires, the connection is triggered and then the second neuron fires. One doesn't need QM to describe that system, just as one doesn't need QM to describe the function of an integrated circuit.

It seems like the point of the paper is that there may be multiple neurons entangled into a probabilistic state.

"A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain.".

While I agree that Fisher's mechanism isn't restricted to linking just two neurons, it is incorrect to say that the neurons are "entangled into a probabilistic state". The entanglement is performed on pairs phosphate ions, not on pairs of entire neurons.

The whole neuron of the group is not necessary, just their use/functions.

 

[ryan]

You must not have read my post. Even if you are right, you offer nothing other than your very very very broad conclusions.

What is anyone suppose to make of this other than wild arrogance.

Wild speculation has to be connected in some way to reality. You have failed miserably to do so.

Decisions in the world involve ideas about the world.

Quantum effects are just that, effects.

They have no connection to a brain making decisions in a world. Which is not an effect. It is a purposeful process.

The brain (mind) behaves purposefully. It has to survive.

Purposeful decision making has no connection to any quantum effect.

This is science, not philosophy. We take observables, define them and make hypothesises/theories. I don't have to explain what the mind is or how it relates to anything.

 

[ryan]

DBT, this part of the discussion is over. I have already tried to give you this link to see slides 4, 5 and 6 , but clearly you either haven't read them or accepted them.

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

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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.

See slides 4, 5 and 6 .

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?

You think I am arguing for a choice within a choice, but that is not what I am arguing for. First there is DBT's deciding, then there is the decision. DBT may have chosen differently; the underlying mechanics support that this would have been mechanically possible - not the other way around.

Again, the research you refer to does not support your proposition, for the reasons repeatedly given by several posters, including me.

Instead of just posting links to research that proposed quantum effects at synaptic junctions as a part of brain function, which nobody is disputing the possibility but doesn't support these effects alone as a means of decision making, which requires macro scale neurons, dendrites, axons, etc as an information processing mechanism, why don't you address the examples I gave in your own words?

I tried to do that by explaining that the decisions at in a superposition. Then you said they aren't, then I told you to see slides 4, 5 and 6 . That's where we are at.

 

[ryan]

When you role a die that will decide a decision for you, do you feel like you had more control over that decision than if you would have just made the decision without the die?.

You mad? Of course i have more control if I dont have to rely on the result of thrown dices.

But the act to decide is still the act to decide whether or not we zoom into the decision-making process and see what appears to be random dice rolling. It's still what we call a decision.

You want to move the goalposts by redefining the holistic concept of a decision.

 

[untermensche]

Wild speculation has to be connected in some way to reality. You have failed miserably to do so.

Decisions in the world involve ideas about the world.

Quantum effects are just that, effects.

They have no connection to a brain making decisions in a world. Which is not an effect. It is a purposeful process.

The brain (mind) behaves purposefully. It has to survive.

Purposeful decision making has no connection to any quantum effect.

This is science, not philosophy. We take observables, define them and make hypothesises/theories. I don't have to explain what the mind is or how it relates to anything.

You cannot construct any science that totally ignores realities.

Like animals behave purposefully in attempts to survive.

Nothing about any quantum effect can explain how they do it.

Purposeful decisions. Not indeterminacy.

That is reality.

Not philosophy.

 

[ryan]

This is science, not philosophy. We take observables, define them and make hypothesises/theories. I don't have to explain what the mind is or how it relates to anything.

You cannot construct any science that totally ignores realities.

Like animals behave purposefully in attempts to survive.

Nothing about any quantum effect can explain how they do it.

Purposeful decisions. Not indeterminacy.

That is reality.

Not philosophy.

In other words, I am only talking about the mechanics and the preexisting behavioral definitions. Everything in between is for philosophy.