Human Instinct and Free Will

[DBT]

Clearly it might. Between Posner molecules and microtubules, there is a possibility for independence. This is such early days for quantum cognitive research that I think it would be presumptuous to assume the extent of quantum functions.

You still are still misconstruing superposition, the mechanisms of decision making and the research.

Nope, not that I can tell. I read both research papers about 5 times each now, and it all leaves "could have chosen differently" on the table.

No, no and no for the reasons clearly outlined by several posters, Bigfield, Bilby, Juma

Oh DBT, oh no, you aren't really pulling this card are you? Science isn't subject to popular vote - thank god!

My point was more about ''the reasons clearly outlined'' - the number of poster who outlined the reasons why you are misconstruing the articles is secondary.

However, why not accept my invitation to provide the quotes from the articles that you believe support your proposition that it is decisions that in superposition?

 

[Juma]

Clearly it might. Between Posner molecules and microtubules, there is a possibility for independence. This is such early days for quantum cognitive research that I think it would be presumptuous to assume the extent of quantum functions.

You still are still misconstruing superposition, the mechanisms of decision making and the research.

Nope, not that I can tell. I read both research papers about 5 times each now, and it all leaves "could have chosen differently" on the table.

No, no and no for the reasons clearly outlined by several posters, Bigfield, Bilby, Juma

Oh DBT, oh no, you aren't really pulling this card are you? Science isn't subject to popular vote - thank god!

Of course not.
What you do is not science.

 

[Malintent]

I reject your assertion that any other decision was possible. You have no basis for the assertion. The only basis would be actually traveling backwards through time and observing different outcomes, given identical circumstances. I assert that given identical variables, one would observe identical outcomes. The basis of that assertion is the success of the scientific method, which itself is based on this notion (confirmation via repeatable experimentation).

This thesis is the basis for my rejection of the notion of "free will". "Free will" is like "random". It is only the imagination of the existence of possibilities due to our limited view of all relevant variables.

You are assuming there are other variables in QM. So far there is no evidence for other variables.

I assume nothing except that the universe is not a "random" place, and that given the exact variables (regardless of how many there are - that is not a relevant point), one can expect the exact same outcome. the more "unseen" variables there are, the more "random" we imagine it to be... and the more "freedom" we imagine there is around the exercising of our "will".

 

[Treedbear]

You are assuming there are other variables in QM. So far there is no evidence for other variables.

I assume nothing except that the universe is not a "random" place, and that given the exact variables (regardless of how many there are - that is not a relevant point), one can expect the exact same outcome. the more "unseen" variables there are, the more "random" we imagine it to be... and the more "freedom" we imagine there is around the exercising of our "will".

I'd like someone to explain the difference between something being random, indeterministic, and probabilistic. I've heard the first two used in the discussion of quantum mechanics as well as free will. And I think the Compatibilists view of free will might be an example of an appeal to what is possible, if not necessarily probable. It seems to me one doesn't necessarily infer the other. There are about 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics of which only 4 are deterministic, 6 not , and 3 are agnostic.

 

[ryan]

I gave my reason, the quote, but you just say I am wrong. You don't expect me to just trust you, do you?

I don't expect you to trust me and don't 'just' say you are wrong; my position is supported by the argument I've presented in this thread. Did you understand my argument?

So I decided that I should just send Matthew an e-mail and ask him myself. After a brief introduction, here is what I ended up with,

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?".

When I think about what he says in his paper and I think about the mathematical model of QC being quantum probabilistic, I feel like I just wasted his time with an obvious question. If decision-making is based on neural processes and these neural processes are held in a superposition during contemplation, then it just seems obvious that he was going for quantum mechanical explanation for the quantum probability.

We will see, if he replies. I promise to give his answer regardless of what it is.

 

[ryan]

Clearly it might. Between Posner molecules and microtubules, there is a possibility for independence. This is such early days for quantum cognitive research that I think it would be presumptuous to assume the extent of quantum functions.

You still are still misconstruing superposition, the mechanisms of decision making and the research.

Nope, not that I can tell. I read both research papers about 5 times each now, and it all leaves "could have chosen differently" on the table.

No, no and no for the reasons clearly outlined by several posters, Bigfield, Bilby, Juma

Oh DBT, oh no, you aren't really pulling this card are you? Science isn't subject to popular vote - thank god!

My point was more about ''the reasons clearly outlined'' - the number of poster who outlined the reasons why you are misconstruing the articles is secondary.

However, why not accept my invitation to provide the quotes from the articles that you believe support your proposition that it is decisions that in superposition?

I have. It's where he says that it is a "working definition of 'quantum cognition'". Anyways, I sent him an e-mail in hopes of ending this. I told bigfield what I sent.

 

[Juma]

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?".

Jezzuzz. Did you send this??? Why on earth would expect a meankngful response?

You have actually formulateda question that soesnt ask anything and will let you interpret the answer in any way you want... but that is what you want, isnt it?

 

[ryan]

I assume nothing except that the universe is not a "random" place, and that given the exact variables (regardless of how many there are - that is not a relevant point), one can expect the exact same outcome. the more "unseen" variables there are, the more "random" we imagine it to be... and the more "freedom" we imagine there is around the exercising of our "will".

I'd like someone to explain the difference between something being random, indeterministic, and probabilistic. I've heard the first two used in the discussion of quantum mechanics as well as free will. And I think the Compatibilists view of free will might be an example of an appeal to what is possible, if not necessarily probable. It seems to me one doesn't necessarily infer the other. There are about 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics of which only 4 are deterministic, 6 not , and 3 are agnostic.

I think randomness in a classical world would only be relative to an observer. If an observer knew enough about the state of everything, nothing would be left to chance; that's how they used to think before QM came along. In other words, the future already exists. But with QM, the future may not exist and may not have to follow any laws/rules at all. It would be objectively indeterministic.

 

[ryan]

"Since plenty of quantum cognition research only uses mathematical models from quantum probability to help better explain the decision-making process, might your proposed working definition of quantum cognition actually mean that some physical aspect of the consciousness during the decision-making process is in a superposition due to quantum mechanics?".

Jezzuzz. Did you send this??? Why on earth would expect a meankngful response?

You have actually formulateda question that soesnt ask anything and will let you interpret the answer in any way you want... but that is what you want, isnt it?

The question between me and bigfield is whether or not the superposition of the conscious decision-making process is due to the quantum mechanisms that he discusses in the paper. The question is what I wanted it to be.

 

[Treedbear]

I'd like someone to explain the difference between something being random, indeterministic, and probabilistic. I've heard the first two used in the discussion of quantum mechanics as well as free will. And I think the Compatibilists view of free will might be an example of an appeal to what is possible, if not necessarily probable. It seems to me one doesn't necessarily infer the other. There are about 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics of which only 4 are deterministic, 6 not , and 3 are agnostic.

I think randomness in a classical world would only be relative to an observer. If an observer knew enough about the state of everything, nothing would be left to chance; that's how they used to think before QM came along. In other words, the future already exists. But with QM, the future may not exist and may not have to follow any laws/rules at all. It would be objectively indeterministic.

Yeah, I think randomness is an idealized perspective, even when describing QM. But I don't agree that if the future is determined, that it "already exists". It's just that there is zero probability it can happen other than one way. Perhaps that's what you actually meant? But I think you are correct that if quantum mechanics is actually indeterministic then subatomic events could have been otherwise. And that if there were structures that could harness and amplify the effects of individual quantum events then macro events could have been otherwise. So human behavior could hypothetically also be indeterminant and therefore by some definitions free, or freer, but objectively non-random. I even see the value this may play in decision making and the creative thought process. But I have to ask how this freedom, originating in subatomic events can have anything to do with what we refer to as "will" when those individual events have no way of receiving information on what decisions they are effecting. They lack the perception and feedback mechanisms. And, anyway, if they had these inputs it would no longer be indeterminant. This is why I think anything beyond a Compatibilist definition of free will always leads to Idealism and spiritualism.

 

[ryan]

I think randomness in a classical world would only be relative to an observer. If an observer knew enough about the state of everything, nothing would be left to chance; that's how they used to think before QM came along. In other words, the future already exists. But with QM, the future may not exist and may not have to follow any laws/rules at all. It would be objectively indeterministic.

Yeah, I think randomness is an idealized perspective, even when describing QM. But I don't agree that if the future is determined, that it "already exists". It's just that there is zero probability it can happen other than one way. Perhaps that's what you actually meant? But I think you are correct that if quantum mechanics is actually indeterministic then subatomic events could have been otherwise. And that if there were structures that could harness and amplify the effects of individual quantum events then macro events could have been otherwise. So human behavior could hypothetically also be indeterminant and therefore by some definitions free, or freer, but objectively non-random. I even see the value this may play in decision making and the creative thought process.

In the relativistic sense, the future has happened for some observers (observing from a beam of light or a black hole). So time is a dimension and where you are on it depends on your relativistic speed or acceleration. That's relativity.

But I have to ask how this freedom, originating in subatomic events can have anything to do with what we refer to as "will" when those individual events have no way of receiving information on what decisions they are effecting. They lack the perception and feedback mechanisms. And, anyway, if they had these inputs it would no longer be indeterminant. This is why I think anything beyond a Compatibilist definition of free will always leads to Idealism and spiritualism.

As for "individual events", a major problem with consciousness is the aboutness phenomenon. A way I see science can explain this is with quantum entanglement. Without entanglement how can the brain or anything have holistic accounts of reality if the brain itself is composed of individual particles. How could things like statements have any holistic meaning? We should only know about one particle at a time. But multiple objects becoming one object such as with quantum entanglement allows conception to be more than just a particle; it can be an entangled system inside and outside of the brain as we call observational knowledge.

So being conscious, IMO, really just means the extent of your entanglement in and outside the brain. It might seem like a leap at first, but it explains the consciousness so naturally/realistically. We don't have think about a ghost in the machine, just hard emergence from parts.

 

[Juma]

Jezzuzz. Did you send this??? Why on earth would expect a meankngful response?

You have actually formulateda question that soesnt ask anything and will let you interpret the answer in any way you want... but that is what you want, isnt it?

The question between me and bigfield is whether or not the superposition of the conscious decision-making process is due to the quantum mechanisms that he discusses in the paper. The question is what I wanted it to be.

Which is exactly what i wrote in my post. Did you even read it?

 

[ryan]

The question between me and bigfield is whether or not the superposition of the conscious decision-making process is due to the quantum mechanisms that he discusses in the paper. The question is what I wanted it to be.

Which is exactly what i wrote in my post. Did you even read it?

Boring and trolling, random behavior must exist. I mean it all balances out probabilistically. For every good post like DBT or bigfield often make, there has to be an obnoxiously boring post meant only to troll. Ah, the universe makes sense.

 

[bigfield]

If decision-making is based on neural processes and these neural processes are held in a superposition during contemplation, then it just seems obvious that he was going for quantum mechanical explanation for the quantum probability.

The only article that posits that "neural processes are held in a superposition during contemplation" is Wang et al, and that article is not referring to actual quantum effects; they are simply using the mathematics of quantum superposition to describe cognition.

You make this error repeatedly and I've pointed it out to you in previous posts:

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.

 

[Juma]

Which is exactly what i wrote in my post. Did you even read it?

Boring and trolling, random behavior must exist. I mean it all balances out probabilistically. For every good post like DBT or bigfield often make, there has to be an obnoxiously boring post meant only to troll. Ah, the universe makes sense.

What the heck are you talking about? You seem to have lost track on who posts what here...

 

[ryan]

The only article that posits that "neural processes are held in a superposition during contemplation" is Wang et al, and that article is not referring to actual quantum effects; they are simply using the mathematics of quantum superposition to describe cognition.

I know. I was referring to Fisher's working definition of QC, which is what Wang's research is about.

 

[ryan]

Jezzuzz. Did you send this??? Why on earth would expect a meankngful response?

You have actually formulateda question that soesnt ask anything and will let you interpret the answer in any way you want... but that is what you want, isnt it?

The question between me and bigfield is whether or not the superposition of the conscious decision-making process is due to the quantum mechanisms that he discusses in the paper. The question is what I wanted it to be.

Which is exactly what i wrote in my post. Did you even read it?

What do you mean you wrote exactly this? Clearly what I wrote and what you wrote are different.

 

[bigfield]

The only article that posits that "neural processes are held in a superposition during contemplation" is Wang et al, and that article is not referring to actual quantum effects; they are simply using the mathematics of quantum superposition to describe cognition.

I know. I was referring to Fisher's working definition of QC, which is what Wang's research is about.

No, it's not. Fisher is referring to quantum cognition in the sense that cognition involves actual quantum effects; Wang et al is simply using the mathematics of quantum probability to model higher-level processes.

 

[ryan]

I know. I was referring to Fisher's working definition of QC, which is what Wang's research is about.

No, it's not.

Wang's research is not about QC or Fisher's research isn't about QC?

 

[bigfield]

No, it's not.

Wang's research is not about QC or Fisher's research isn't about QC?

I expanded on my reply. See above.