Human Instinct and Free Will

[untermensche]

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.

You are not discussing any biological mechanisms.

You are pretending that certain aspects of the behavior of matter are biological mechanisms with no evidence.

 

[ryan]

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

You are not discussing any biological mechanisms.

Really? Well now you have went from arrogant to full out ignorant. By saying that I know you're just trolling.

 

[DBT]

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.

That's not where we are at. You still misconstrue the research.

Decisions are not fundamental particles that may display wave like properties.

Decisions are based on bodies of information, not particle/wave states.

Bodies of information that relate to conditions in the macro world, some being perceived to be of benefit to the subject, others to the detriment.

This is not 'decisions in superposition' in terms of QM.

Please deal with what I say in your own words instead of providing links to articles that do not actually support your claims.

 

[bigfield]

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.

The phosphate ions are the only part of Fisher's mechanism that are put into superposition.

 

[bilby]

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.

Thank you so much for that informative and detailed rebuttal.

Can I assume that you have no actual rebuttal of what I said, but are unable to bring yourself to accept that it is correct, as that would entail abandoning one of your favourite beliefs?

I agree that abandoning false beliefs in the face of facts can be painful; but no pain, no gain.

 

[ryan]

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.

That's not where we are at. You still misconstrue the research.

Decisions are not fundamental particles that may display wave like properties.

Decisions are based on bodies of information, not particle/wave states.

Bodies of information that relate to conditions in the macro world, some being perceived to be of benefit to the subject, others to the detriment.

This is not 'decisions in superposition' in terms of QM.

Please deal with what I say in your own words instead of providing links to articles that do not actually support your claims.

Decisions may be held in a state of superposition. There may be a system of non-locally entangled Posner molecules that are responsible for whether or not multiple neurons fire.

The actual quote is, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

 

[ryan]

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.

The phosphate ions are the only part of Fisher's mechanism that are put into superposition.

But why does that matter? If its effect is amplified to the scale of a quantum probabilistic decision, then the decision could still be a function of a probability.

 

[ryan]

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

Thank you so much for that informative and detailed rebuttal.

Can I assume that you have no actual rebuttal of what I said, but are unable to bring yourself to accept that it is correct, as that would entail abandoning one of your favourite beliefs?

I agree that abandoning false beliefs in the face of facts can be painful; but no pain, no gain.

You put,

"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,".

I have posted this evidence probably 20 times in the last 100 posts. You are another one with this ignorant and arrogant way. Nobody wants to hear from someone who is wrong right off the bat, especially when it is right in front of them to see throughout this thread.

Since you just can't be bothered to scroll a page or two, why don't you tell it to Matthew Fisher and save him the embarrassment,

" 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. Strong time and spatially dependent magnetic fields would be expected
to modify the phosphorus spin dynamics inside Posner molecules, and could be characterized with
NMR. Might this inform trans-cranial magneto stimulation protocols, [37] modifying their efficacy in
treating mental illness? If two lithium ions can be incorporated inside the Posner molecules during
molecule formation (replacing the central divalent calcium cation) they would tend to decohere the
phosphorus nuclear spins, offering a possible explanation for the remarkable efficacy of lithium in
tempering mania in patients with bipolar disorder.".

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

 

[DBT]

That's not where we are at. You still misconstrue the research.

Decisions are not fundamental particles that may display wave like properties.

Decisions are based on bodies of information, not particle/wave states.

Bodies of information that relate to conditions in the macro world, some being perceived to be of benefit to the subject, others to the detriment.

This is not 'decisions in superposition' in terms of QM.

Please deal with what I say in your own words instead of providing links to articles that do not actually support your claims.

Decisions may be held in a state of superposition. There may be a system of non-locally entangled Posner molecules that are responsible for whether or not multiple neurons fire.

The actual quote is, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

These are not decisions in superposition. Nor are entangled particles necessarily in superposition. Entanglement and superposition are two different states. You still misconstrue quantum function at the smallest scale of neural mechanisms as being decisions.

Decisions are neither particles or probability waves. Decisions are information based calculations of benefit to cost ratios based on a set of criteria encoded in memory function. An interaction of input and memory through the means of neural networks.

 

[ryan]

Decisions may be held in a state of superposition. There may be a system of non-locally entangled Posner molecules that are responsible for whether or not multiple neurons fire.

The actual quote is, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

These are not decisions in superposition. Nor are entangled particles necessarily in superposition. Entanglement and superposition are two different states. You still misconstrue quantum function at the smallest scale of neural mechanisms as being decisions.

Decisions are neither particles or probability waves. Decisions are information based calculations of benefit to cost ratios based on a set of criteria encoded in memory function. An interaction of input and memory through the means of neural networks.

While it is true that you can have a particle in a superposition but not entangled, I am almost 100 percent sure that the components of any entangled system must be in a superposition of possible values.

 

[Juma]

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.

Ryan. You have totally lost the grip on why we make decisions. They are NOT random. Noting indicates that they would be. On the contrary: we are very good at detecting when people beging to act randomly: they start to drop things, fall, speak incoherently etc.

 

[ryan]

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.

Ryan. You have totally lost the grip on why we make decisions. They are NOT random. Noting indicates that they would be. On the contrary: we are very good at detecting when people beging to act randomly: they start to drop things, fall, speak incoherently etc.

The decisions in the research are less clear than deciding whether or mot to break a plate for no apparent reason. They are like an indecisive vote for A or B, or what to have for supper. The results of these unclear decisions follow QM probability math more closely than CM probability math.

 

[Juma]

Ryan. You have totally lost the grip on why we make decisions. They are NOT random. Noting indicates that they would be. On the contrary: we are very good at detecting when people beging to act randomly: they start to drop things, fall, speak incoherently etc.

The decisions in the research are less clear than deciding whether or mot to break a plate for no apparent reason. They are like an indecisive vote for A or B, or what to have for supper. The results of these unclear decisions follow QM probability math more closely than CM probability math.

But that is because the brain is a infornational processing unit, not because it is built on QM.

As I have said before: neural networks made from totally deterministic parts can also behave that way. It is nothing specific for QM machines.

 

[ryan]

The decisions in the research are less clear than deciding whether or mot to break a plate for no apparent reason. They are like an indecisive vote for A or B, or what to have for supper. The results of these unclear decisions follow QM probability math more closely than CM probability math.

But that is because the brain is a infornational processing unit, not because it is built on QM.

As I have said before: neural networks made from totally deterministic parts can also behave that way. It is nothing specific for QM machines.

But it doesn't change the fact that the decisions might be explained using QM probability/randomness, which is what your issue was in your post before this one.

And the research I have found does give a possible working definition of quantum cognition using quantum processes.

 

[Juma]

But that is because the brain is a infornational processing unit, not because it is built on QM.

As I have said before: neural networks made from totally deterministic parts can also behave that way. It is nothing specific for QM machines.

But it doesn't change the fact that the decisions might be explained using QM probability/randomness, which is what your issue was in your post before this one.

And the research I have found does give a possible working definition of quantum cognition using quantum processes.

But... we arent random except int matters that dont matter which is more probable expkained by just ordinary neural networks...

it is a helluva stretch to suggest QM.

It could as well be a free soul given to us by a god.

Thats how laughable your theory is.

 

[ryan]

But it doesn't change the fact that the decisions might be explained using QM probability/randomness, which is what your issue was in your post before this one.

And the research I have found does give a possible working definition of quantum cognition using quantum processes.

But... we arent random except int matters that dont matter which is more probable expkained by just ordinary neural networks...

it is a helluva stretch to suggest QM.

It could as well be a free soul given to us by a god.

Thats how laughable your theory is.

Alright, thanks for another Juma-type discussion.

 

[Juma]

But... we arent random except int matters that dont matter which is more probable expkained by just ordinary neural networks...

it is a helluva stretch to suggest QM.

It could as well be a free soul given to us by a god.

Thats how laughable your theory is.

Alright, thanks for another Juma-type discussion.

The common nominator of these weird discussions is you, not me.

Think about it: Why is it that you never get support for your argument by anyone in these kinds of threads? Because everyone else are idiots?

 

[ryan]

Alright, thanks for another Juma-type discussion.

The common nominator of these weird discussions is you, not me.

Think about it: Why is it that you never get support for your argument by anyone in these kinds of threads? Because everyone else are idiots?

I don't get swayed by the popular vote, only the arguments.

 

[DBT]

But it doesn't change the fact that the decisions might be explained using QM probability/randomness, which is what your issue was in your post before this one.

And the research I have found does give a possible working definition of quantum cognition using quantum processes.

A working quantum model of cognition only explains particle/chemical interaction of the mechanism and not why certain decisions are made by one individual based on his or her life experiences but not by another.

QM is a long, long way from describing encoded memory content and how it shapes an individual (brain agency) and his or her decisions.

Nor, of course, are probabilistic quantum events that may alter the course of brain decision making an example of a choice made by the brain.

 

[DBT]

These are not decisions in superposition. Nor are entangled particles necessarily in superposition. Entanglement and superposition are two different states. You still misconstrue quantum function at the smallest scale of neural mechanisms as being decisions.

Decisions are neither particles or probability waves. Decisions are information based calculations of benefit to cost ratios based on a set of criteria encoded in memory function. An interaction of input and memory through the means of neural networks.

While it is true that you can have a particle in a superposition but not entangled, I am almost 100 percent sure that the components of any entangled system must be in a superposition of possible values.

In that case you are invoking the many worlds interpretation of quantum...where all possible states are in superposition, but in their own respective time lines and worlds. Which is a deterministic system where your condition is determined by the world your version of ryan happens to reside. One ryan going down one path, another ryan turning back, one ryan arguing for Quantum free will, another ryan arguing against.