Human Instinct and Free Will

[Juma]

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.

Obviously not that either.

 

[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.

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.

The superposition of the phosphate ions is not "amplified to the scale of a quantum probabilistic decision".

 

[untermensche]

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.

You have no biological mechanisms. Not one.

You have some random topics in quantum mechanics you are pretending are biological mechanisms.

Your dogged fascination with nothingness is absurd.

This is comic book science. Science without any rational basis.

Childishness.

 

[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.

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.

That's the whole point. It is objectively random.

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

I posted a research paper a few pages back about memories being in a quantum state too.

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.

"alter the course of brain decision making"? You are assuming that the decision-making process is fully explained and this possible new model is an alteration. But it could have been the decision-making process all along. You can't make your own absolute definitions.

 

[ryan]

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.

The superposition of the phosphate ions is not "amplified to the scale of a quantum probabilistic decision".

I put "its effect is amplified" (like the decaying particle that leads to the death of a cat or not) not its superposition.

And it is not entirely settled that the cat is not alive and dead after the particle decays; many scientists believe this.

 

[ryan]

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

You have no biological mechanisms. Not one.

You have some random topics in quantum mechanics you are pretending are biological mechanisms.

Okay mensche, somewhere between this post and the last post you made this claim is a proposed mechanism for quantum cognition (not made by me). If you find it, you can go from arrogant and ignorant to just arrogant.

Good Luck!

 

[untermensche]

You have no biological mechanisms. Not one.

You have some random topics in quantum mechanics you are pretending are biological mechanisms.

Okay mensche, somewhere between this post and the last post you made this claim is a proposed mechanism for quantum cognition (not made by me). If you find it, you can go from arrogant and ignorant to just arrogant.

Good Luck!

Do you know what a biological mechanism is?

 

[ryan]

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.

Not necessarily many worlds, but in that case, ryan always gets what he wills, but also he never gets what he wills.

Let's see. If present ryan (ryan*) chooses A instead of B, future ryan will ask "could have ryan* chosen differently?". The answer is yes since he did choose differently. It seems like that would be allowed for the definition of free will. In other words, did ryan* have the freedom to chose either A or B, I am thinking yes.

 

[ryan]

Do you know what a biological mechanism is?

Yes, and apparently there are 3 definitions, http://www.academia.edu/1019291/The_Concept_of_Mechanism_in_Biology .

I knew about the latter two, but not the first. I assumed you meant the first, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon".

See post #686. Hopefully his definition of a biological mechanism is up to your standards.

Right or wrong, I think the most important lesson that I hope you learnt is how not to engage in a conversation that you don't particularly agree with. The way you come across is childish. People like DBT and bigfield are not like that; we can discuss the matter without all of the ego.

If you want discussions to always go horribly wrong, just keep doing what you are doing, or follow in the footsteps of bilby and Juma.

 

[bigfield]

The superposition of the phosphate ions is not "amplified to the scale of a quantum probabilistic decision".

I put "its effect is amplified" (like the decaying particle that leads to the death of a cat or not) not its superposition.

Fisher's mechanism is not one in which the measured state of a single phosphate ion determines the behaviour of the neuron, therefore it isn't comparable to that thought experiment. Where the measured state of the particle in the box corresponds to the state of the cat, the measured state of any given phosphate ion in Fisher's mechanism does not correspond to the state of the second neuron.

And it is not entirely settled that the cat is not alive and dead after the particle decays; many scientists believe this.

Fisher's proposed mechanism is based on the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[untermensche]

Do you know what a biological mechanism is?

Yes, and apparently there are 3 definitions, http://www.academia.edu/1019291/The_Concept_of_Mechanism_in_Biology .

I knew about the latter two, but not the first. I assumed you meant the first, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon".

See post #686. Hopefully his definition of a biological mechanism is up to your standards.

Right or wrong, I think the most important lesson that I hope you learnt is how not to engage in a conversation that you don't particularly agree with. The way you come across is childish. People like DBT and bigfield are not like that; we can discuss the matter without all of the ego.

If you want discussions to always go horribly wrong, just keep doing what you are doing, or follow in the footsteps of bilby and Juma.

I see no answer just a link that I have no evidence you understand.

Explain in your own words what a biological mechanism is. Since you are claiming it is possible for some obscure effect to also be a biological mechanism.

And this discussion is already horribly wrong. It is utter nonsense.

 

[ryan]

I put "its effect is amplified" (like the decaying particle that leads to the death of a cat or not) not its superposition.

Fisher's mechanism is not one in which the measured state of a single phosphate ion determines the behaviour of the neuron, therefore it isn't comparable to that thought experiment.

Where the measured state of the particle in the box corresponds to the state of the cat, the measured state of any given phosphate ion in Fisher's mechanism does not correspond to the state of the second neuron.

I think it's a bigger system than that. In the abstract, it says,


"Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner
molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further
neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic
neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

The beginning of the paragraph explains how one neuron can be influenced to fire, and the second part explains a much more complex system of entanglement. Then page 599 has, "The chemical binding of multiple Posner molecules with entangled nuclear spins might allow for
complex quantum processing". I take this to mean that the proposed quantum process is responsible for the mathematical models of Wang's research of QC, especially since Fisher calls this a working definition of QC.

And it is not entirely settled that the cat is not alive and dead after the particle decays; many scientists believe this.

Fisher's proposed mechanism is based on the Copenhagen interpretation.

Just throwing that out there, but I will try to just stay focused on the science.

 

[ryan]

Yes, and apparently there are 3 definitions, http://www.academia.edu/1019291/The_Concept_of_Mechanism_in_Biology .

I knew about the latter two, but not the first. I assumed you meant the first, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon".

See post #686. Hopefully his definition of a biological mechanism is up to your standards.

Right or wrong, I think the most important lesson that I hope you learnt is how not to engage in a conversation that you don't particularly agree with. The way you come across is childish. People like DBT and bigfield are not like that; we can discuss the matter without all of the ego.

If you want discussions to always go horribly wrong, just keep doing what you are doing, or follow in the footsteps of bilby and Juma.

I see no answer just a link that I have no evidence you understand.

Explain in your own words what a biological mechanism is. Since you are claiming it is possible for some obscure effect to also be a biological mechanism.

You are already sidestepping your initial comment that I provide no biological mechanism for an argument (an argument that I want to keep scientific). Now I have to understand what the concept means?

Let me start with what I trust is a proper definition, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon". Now, "causal" means: cause, check. "Explanation" means, reason, check. "A particular phenomenon" means, in the scientific world, anything observed directly or indirectly, check.

Now I will try to put all of this together into the context of the discussion. The phenomenon that needs a causal explanation is neural quantum processing (something I need for my scientific argument). Matthew Fisher's proposed causal explanation, as he puts it in the abstract, is, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates". from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

Now I will attempt to summarize. The "multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates" (mechanism) is the causal explanation of neural quantum processing possibly responsible for quantum cognition (phenomenon).

And this discussion is already horribly wrong. It is utter nonsense.

Yes, my point exactly

So why don't you just ask me next time instead of making an assumption on what I have or haven't used in my argument?

 

[Juma]

Now I will attempt to summarize. The "multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates" (mechanism) is the causal explanation of neural quantum processing possibly responsible for quantum cognition (phenomenon).

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

 

[ryan]

Now I will attempt to summarize. The "multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates" (mechanism) is the causal explanation of neural quantum processing possibly responsible for quantum cognition (phenomenon).

And since no "quantum cognition" phenomenon has been observed your entire argument went out the window.

It's a theoretical model based on observation. Perhaps I was being presumptuous and should have just put cognition (phenomena).

 

[DBT]

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.

That's the whole point. It is objectively random.

But doesn't help with 'could have done otherwise' as an actual decision.

I posted a research paper a few pages back about memories being in a quantum state too.

Memories are bodies of information in relation to past events and past experiences. The body of information that is a memory is no more in a state of superposition than the story line of a novel.

If Kit Carson prevents a stage coach robbery as written in a novel, this body information is not in superposition.

If you jammed your finger in a car door yesterday, you remember jamming your finger.

"alter the course of brain decision making"? You are assuming that the decision-making process is fully explained and this possible new model is an alteration. But it could have been the decision-making process all along. You can't make your own absolute definitions.

It is quite clear that the brain as an information processor is sorting information and making selections on the basis of memory, which provides the criteria of selection, no memory function equals no selections being made, or that it is even possible. Countless case studies show the consequences of memory loss.

If a random quantum event disrupts the normal course of selection based on the given criteria (memory) this is not a part of the selection process and therefore not a decision the brain has made.

 

[ryan]

That's the whole point. It is objectively random.

But doesn't help with 'could have done otherwise' as an actual decision.

What do you mean, "as an actual decision"? Are you trying to suggest that the mechanics involved in the decision and the "actual decision" are two different things?

I posted a research paper a few pages back about memories being in a quantum state too.

Memories are bodies of information in relation to past events and past experiences. The body of information that is a memory is no more in a state of superposition than the story line of a novel.

If Kit Carson prevents a stage coach robbery as written in a novel, this body information is not in superposition.

If you jammed your finger in a car door yesterday, you remember jamming your finger.

Please see, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

"alter the course of brain decision making"? You are assuming that the decision-making process is fully explained and this possible new model is an alteration. But it could have been the decision-making process all along. You can't make your own absolute definitions.

It is quite clear that the brain as an information processor is sorting information and making selections on the basis of memory, which provides the criteria of selection, no memory function equals no selections being made, or that it is even possible. Countless case studies show the consequences of memory loss.

If a random quantum event disrupts the normal course of selection based on the given criteria (memory) this is not a part of the selection process and therefore not a decision the brain has made.

Why does it matter whether its classical mechanics or quantum mechanics going on inside the brain? It's still the brain. You are just not used to thinking of the decision-making process this way.

 

[DBT]

But doesn't help with 'could have done otherwise' as an actual decision.

What do you mean, "as an actual decision"? Are you trying to suggest that the mechanics involved in the decision and the "actual decision" are two different things?

A quantum fluctuation is not a decision. A quantum fluctuation disrupting the normal course of option selection by the brain resulting in a random selection, like a random number generator, is not itself a decision.

Please see, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24027175

You need to provide quotes that you believe support what you are arguing. Or explain in your own words how a body of information that is a memory of a past event or experience is in a state of superposition like a photon passing through both slits.

Why does it matter whether its classical mechanics or quantum mechanics going on inside the brain? It's still the brain. You are just not used to thinking of the decision-making process this way.

The brain has no control over disruptions to its architecture, except for some degree of plasticity, re-routing, etc). Brain damage altering a brain is still 'the brain' but now it works differently.

 

[bigfield]

Fisher's mechanism is not one in which the measured state of a single phosphate ion determines the behaviour of the neuron, therefore it isn't comparable to that thought experiment.

Where the measured state of the particle in the box corresponds to the state of the cat, the measured state of any given phosphate ion in Fisher's mechanism does not correspond to the state of the second neuron.

I think it's a bigger system than that. In the abstract, it says,


"Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner
molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further
neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of postsynaptic
neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules,
triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates,
would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing.".

The beginning of the paragraph explains how one neuron can be influenced to fire, and the second part explains a much more complex system of entanglement. Then page 599 has, "The chemical binding of multiple Posner molecules with entangled nuclear spins might allow for
complex quantum processing". I take this to mean that the proposed quantum process is responsible for the mathematical models of Wang's research of QC, especially since Fisher calls this a working definition of QC.

You have made the same mistake repeatedly: you take snippets from Fisher's article and parse them out of context, and unsurprisingly you misunderstand the claims Fisher is making. In this instance, you are taking the term "quantum processing" to mean something other than Fisher means. In the context of the article, "quantum processing" refers simply to a proposed mechanism whereby neurons may be remotely connected to each other by many pairs of entangled Posner molecules.

And as stated previously, Wang et al use the mathematics of quantum mechanics to model brain activity at a high, abstract level, and there is no connection between that and Fisher's article. Here are my responses to previous instances where you've mistakenly claimed that Wang et al were dealing with actual quantum effects:

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

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

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

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

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

Also read,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[untermensche]

Now I have to understand what the concept means?

The discussion has to touch reality in some way, or it is not science in any way.

You can't say for instance: The ability to read minds is due to quantum entanglement, without any physiological mechanism in which this, not could occur, but IS occurring.

Wild speculation has to be grounded in some way to some aspect of reality. Or it is meaningless.

Let me start with what I trust is a proper definition, "the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon".

That's not a definition of a biological mechanism.

A biological mechanism is simply some mechanism within the organism that when activated elicits a physiological response.

Morphine binds to mu receptors which causes changes in the behavior of cells and leads to the physiological responses that alter the perceptions of pain. The whole chain of events is not known but the underlying mechanism is. The binding of a specific molecule to a specific receptor.

This is also somewhat illustrative of the scale in which consciousness works. It is altered by a fairly large molecule, not some quantum effect.

We put people in MRI's and there are huge quantum effects that occur but no change to consciousness.

Matthew Fisher's proposed causal explanation, as he puts it in the abstract, is, "Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates". from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

This is some proposed quantum effect in search of a physiological mechanism.

It is not the illustration of a quantum effect as a physiological mechanism.

As I said, the brain is made of matter, of course there are quantum effects all over the place.

But actually finding evidence of a quantum effect as a physiological mechanism is needed.

But that is a far more complicated task than understanding the physiological basis of consciousness. Something we are not near.