In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

Check out this article for more information.

I read the article, and it has a lot wrong. I wish I had time to tell you everything that I disagree with it and why.

Pick one thing that's relevant to your position, and let's look at it.

 

[ryan]

I read the article, and it has a lot wrong. I wish I had time to tell you everything that I disagree with it and why.

Pick one thing that's relevant to your position, and let's look at it.

He denies holism, yet there is entanglement.

He claims that people who believe in a "quantum mind" believe that our minds are linked with each other. I don't believe that's necessarily true unless my consciousness was somehow entangled with someone else's, and I am not even sure that that could happen.

He claims that space-time is quantified. We don't know this yet.

He claims that there is no continuity in fields, yet the strongest theory is quantum field theory where we need both continuity and discontinuity. Here's a quote from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/ , "However, a general threshold is crossed when it comes to fields, like the electromagnetic field, which are not merely difficult but impossible to deal with in the frame of QM. Thus the transition from QM to QFT allows treatment of both particles and fields within a uniform theoretical framework

He claims that the Copenhagen interpretation has been confirmed. No it hasn't.

He generally talks about the mind as if it is something that does not apply to matter in general. This is an even crazier claim that quantum consciousness.

 

[ryan]

Check out this article for more information.

He thinks that we want this wild reality so that we feel special?! I would rather know for sure that it's all over after death than coming back a infinite times to lives that might be millions of times worse than this one. I have devoted my entire life to try to prevent us from finding out what's on the other side.

No, the real pipe dream is the one where we rest in peace for an eternity. I am terribly afraid not.

 

[DBT]

Pick one thing that's relevant to your position, and let's look at it.

He denies holism, yet there is entanglement.

How does entanglement support holism....and what do you mean by the term?

He claims that people who believe in a "quantum mind" believe that our minds are linked with each other. I don't believe that's necessarily true unless my consciousness was somehow entangled with someone else's, and I am not even sure that that could happen.

There are people who believe in 'linked' minds. Entangled particles may occupy separate brains, but this doesn't doesn't support the proposition anyway.

He claims that space-time is quantified. We don't know this yet.

Perhaps (I don't agree with everything the article says), but this still doesn't change anything in terms of brain structure and function on the scale of information processing...being orders above Quantum scale.

He claims that the Copenhagen interpretation has been confirmed. No it hasn't.

I agree with you on that point, but it is the current favourite. Nor does this point alter the fundamentals of the fallacy of quantum consciousness.

He generally talks about the mind as if it is something that does not apply to matter in general. This is an even crazier claim that quantum consciousness.

I must have missed that (time constraints)..do you have a relevant quote?

 

[ryan]

He denies holism, yet there is entanglement.

How does entanglement support holism....and what do you mean by the term?

Holism is about something that is more than its parts. With entanglement, you have the parts working like a singular object. It's truly an emergent property for reductionists before the discovery of entanglement. Even though I am a reductionist, I believe that we can understand holistically. Take for example, the word "hello". I don't believe that it has a holistic meaning all on its own. However, I do believe that we understand "hello" in a holistic sense as well as in a reducible sense. We know its just particles hitting our eyes one at a time, but our minds/brains also give it a whole/collective meaning as something else.

Using a sufficiently large enough system of entanglement, our minds/brains could simultaneously and holistically give another meaning to "hello" as well as a unified mental image to all of these particles that constitute "hello". We would understand "hello" as its parts, but we would also know "hello" to mean something else as a singular concept.

He claims that people who believe in a "quantum mind" believe that our minds are linked with each other. I don't believe that's necessarily true unless my consciousness was somehow entangled with someone else's, and I am not even sure that that could happen.

There are people who believe in 'linked' minds. Entangled particles may occupy separate brains, but this doesn't doesn't support the proposition anyway.

Why wouldn't entangled minds be linked?

He claims that space-time is quantified. We don't know this yet.

Perhaps (I don't agree with everything the article says), but this still doesn't change anything in terms of brain structure and function on the scale of information processing...being orders above Quantum scale.

For whatever reason, he seems to think that his argument works if everything is discrete/quantified. I don't know what the hell he's talking about there.

He claims that the Copenhagen interpretation has been confirmed. No it hasn't.

I agree with you on that point, but it is the current favourite. Nor does this point alter the fundamentals of the fallacy of quantum consciousness.

But after reading all of these strange claims, what is the point in trusting anything else. Why are we even reading this? He is only philosophising.

He generally talks about the mind as if it is something that does not apply to matter in general. This is an even crazier claim that quantum consciousness.

I must have missed that (time constraints)..do you have a relevant quote?

At the top of the second column on the 15th page, he says that the discovery of systems that are determined by human observation led many to infer that human observation has a role in the universe. It doesn't just infer it; it implies it.

 

[DBT]

But after reading all of these strange claims, what is the point in trusting anything else. Why are we even reading this? He is only philosophizing.

It's not entirely a matter of strange claims, the Copenhagen interpretation is currently the accepted model. I think he went a bit far with his wording in some matters....but if you want to say that ''he is only philosophizing'' - that is even more true of your proposition regarding QM in relation to neural information processing and decision making, for which there is no evidence. So it's a bit ironic to accuse someone of philosophizing when Quantum consciousness is nothing but that.

To go back to the point of computers selecting options on the basis of a given set of criteria, that is decision making without 'free will' or Quantum entanglement enabled processing.

In other words, it is the macro scale architecture of the processor that is gathering and processing information in relation to macro scale objects and events, comparing values such as cost to benefit ratio in order to select the best option to suit the given criteria. The underlying world of quantum scale activity being the scaffolding, there being no decisions made without a macro scale processor....and makes the term 'free will' obsolete.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

 

[ryan]

But after reading all of these strange claims, what is the point in trusting anything else. Why are we even reading this? He is only philosophizing.

It's not entirely a matter of strange claims, the Copenhagen interpretation is currently the accepted model. I think he went a bit far with his wording in some matters....but if you want to say that ''he is only philosophizing'' - that is even more true of your proposition regarding QM in relation to neural information processing and decision making, for which there is no evidence. So it's a bit ironic to accuse someone of philosophizing when Quantum consciousness is nothing but that.

To go back to the point of computers selecting options on the basis of a given set of criteria, that is decision making without 'free will' or Quantum entanglement enabled processing.

In other words, it is the macro scale architecture of the processor that is gathering and processing information in relation to macro scale objects and events, comparing values such as cost to benefit ratio in order to select the best option to suit the given criteria. The underlying world of quantum scale activity being the scaffolding, there being no decisions made without a macro scale processor....and makes the term 'free will' obsolete.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

My reason for being on here is more about how free will would work and why it's important not give in to being a cog in a machine. If there is any hope for free will, I say you act as if you have it.

 

[bilby]

It's not entirely a matter of strange claims, the Copenhagen interpretation is currently the accepted model. I think he went a bit far with his wording in some matters....but if you want to say that ''he is only philosophizing'' - that is even more true of your proposition regarding QM in relation to neural information processing and decision making, for which there is no evidence. So it's a bit ironic to accuse someone of philosophizing when Quantum consciousness is nothing but that.

To go back to the point of computers selecting options on the basis of a given set of criteria, that is decision making without 'free will' or Quantum entanglement enabled processing.

In other words, it is the macro scale architecture of the processor that is gathering and processing information in relation to macro scale objects and events, comparing values such as cost to benefit ratio in order to select the best option to suit the given criteria. The underlying world of quantum scale activity being the scaffolding, there being no decisions made without a macro scale processor....and makes the term 'free will' obsolete.

Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

My reason for being on here is more about how free will would work and why it's important not give in to being a cog in a machine. If there is any hope for free will, I say you act as if you have it.

You do know that facts cannot be modified by appeals to consequences, don't you?

If there is free will, then you are not a 'cog in a machine'; If there is not, then you cannot 'give in' to anything.

In neither case can it be logical to say "it's important not give in to being a cog in a machine".

Although admittedly it is possible that you have no other possible course of action than to make that statement, regardless of whether or not it is true

Perhaps you have free will; or perhaps you are inexorably driven by fate to behave as though you have free will. Either way, there is nothing here that can reasonably be described as 'important'; at best it is a hackneyed old philosophical question with no real impact on reality. At worst we are only discussing it because we are fated to do so.

 

[DBT]

My reason for being on here is more about how free will would work and why it's important not give in to being a cog in a machine. If there is any hope for free will, I say you act as if you have it.

We act the way we act and believe the things we believe and think the way we think, and think the things we think, because the information condition of the brain is in that state of conscious experience/perception in that instance in time.

That 'free will' is an illusion doesn't mean we that we can't think, feel and decide.

 

[ryan]

Well, hopefully I helped at least someone see that free will might be possible.

 

[DBT]

Well, hopefully I helped at least someone see that free will might be possible.

Why is that important?

 

[ryan]

Well, hopefully I helped at least someone see that free will might be possible.

Why is that important?

There are many psychological and sociological implications.

For example, I always saw psychiatrists and psychologists, but they could never get through to me. But about 8 years I got serious and became a patient of a team of psychiatrists and psychologists. I saw them 5 days a week for 6 hours per day. This lasted 6 weeks, and then follow ups were twice per week for a year. My depression is clinical, but I have at least been able to do some things that I am quite proud of and never thought that I was ever capable of. The major help that I took away from their teachings is that we have control over our lives, we choose how we want to react and we are responsible for our decisions.

For years I was unable to leave my parent's basement. I only looked at the probability that I would be able to leave and change my life instead of actually "willing" myself to do it, or at least thinking that I could "will" myself out.

 

[DBT]

Why is that important?

There are many psychological and sociological implications.

For example, I always saw psychiatrists and psychologists, but they could never get through to me. But about 8 years I got serious and became a patient of a team of psychiatrists and psychologists. I saw them 5 days a week for 6 hours per day. This lasted 6 weeks, and then follow ups were twice per week for a year. My depression is clinical, but I have at least been able to do some things that I am quite proud of and never thought that I was ever capable of. The major help that I took away from their teachings is that we have control over our lives, we choose how we want to react and we are responsible for our decisions.

For years I was unable to leave my parent's basement. I only looked at the probability that I would be able to leave and change my life instead of actually "willing" myself to do it, or at least thinking that I could "will" myself out.

Ryan, sorry about your problems. It sounds like you are making a remarkable improvement, but to say that 'free will' is an illusion doesn't mean that we cannot decide, that we cannot act, that we cannot heal, that we cannot seek help, that our problems cannot be effectively treated....that we do not have will - the drive or impulse to act. We can and we do.

The issue of the nature of will or 'willpower' - ''she is 'strong' willed'' - ''he is 'weak' willed'' and so on, is related to how we think, how we feel, how we change and how we heal, the means and mechanisms that enable change, and not that these things are impossible.

 

[rrr6]

Free Will Not A Choice and Limited At Best

Since Universe is cause and effect, I agree, that, there is no true, free will choice, only a good illusion of such.

Where do exhibit the illusion of free will choice, it is limited nature of our environment circumstances and consfirmed by our discovery of cosmic laws/prinicples.

Gravity is the essence--- the cosmic key ---to all cause and effects of Universe and all of its subsequent parts. imho

Map the graviational membrane/fabric/network of nodal-vertexial-events, and then we better predict the future.

The static geometric basis for the gravitational membrane, is derived from the icosa{20}hedron. imho

r6

 

[DBT]

What exactly is a 'free will' choice, given that neural networks process the information - from sensory inputs to conscious perceptions - that a decision is composed of prior to conscious representation and experience of the thought process is generated?

 

[PyramidHead]

What exactly is a 'free will' choice, given that neural networks process the information - from sensory inputs to conscious perceptions - that a decision is composed of prior to conscious representation and experience of the thought process is generated?

One stance would be that the 'free' in the 'free will' is not a property of the brain, or even the person, but the situation in which the choice is being made. Compatibilism says you don't look for free will in the brain, you look for it between individuals, as ordinary people do, and as courts do. You reject this view, but it seems that it still provides information. A person who is coerced into doing something is, under usual assumptions, not doing it of their own free will. Their brains will look the same as people who are being coerced--at least they won't be different in a necessary/sufficient way to tell they are not being coerced. But their behavior has a relevant difference that impinges on how the law treats them, so I think there must be something to it, at least pragmatically.

 

[rrr6]

There is only the illusion of free will.

The free will illusion is limited by nature of cosmos. Think of free as degrees of freedom.

A perfect circle exists in concept only as an infinite set of angles. So we can set some arbitrary finite limit and say, humans are limited to 360 degrees, or 480, or whatever.

The point be limites to free will that is an illusion, because of the underlying, ultra-micro, gravitational networ of nodal-vertexia-events. imho.

r6

Since Universe is cause and effect, I agree, that, there is no true, free will choice, only a good illusion of such.
Where do exhibit the illusion of free will choice, it is limited nature of our environment circumstances and consfirmed by our discovery of cosmic laws/prinicples.
Gravity is the essence--- the cosmic key ---to all cause and effects of Universe and all of its subsequent parts. imho
Map the graviational membrane/fabric/network of nodal-vertexial-events, and then we better predict the future.
The static geometric basis for the gravitational membrane, is derived from the icosa{20}hedron. imho
r6

 

[DBT]

What exactly is a 'free will' choice, given that neural networks process the information - from sensory inputs to conscious perceptions - that a decision is composed of prior to conscious representation and experience of the thought process is generated?

One stance would be that the 'free' in the 'free will' is not a property of the brain, or even the person, but the situation in which the choice is being made. Compatibilism says you don't look for free will in the brain, you look for it between individuals, as ordinary people do, and as courts do. You reject this view, but it seems that it still provides information. A person who is coerced into doing something is, under usual assumptions, not doing it of their own free will. Their brains will look the same as people who are being coerced--at least they won't be different in a necessary/sufficient way to tell they are not being coerced. But their behavior has a relevant difference that impinges on how the law treats them, so I think there must be something to it, at least pragmatically.

Doesn't work.

Definitions of behaviour without regard to the sources and processes that produce them are not valid definitions.

All decisions and all behaviours, whether coerced or not, are formed and generated by the brain and its information processing activity.

All human interactions, how people think, perceive themselves, behave toward others, relationships, needs, wants, fears, is an activity of a brain. The brain being the sole agent of self identity, thought and decision making...sometimes coerced through circumstances and sometimes expressions of desire, hope, enjoyment and so on.

 

[ryan]

One stance would be that the 'free' in the 'free will' is not a property of the brain, or even the person, but the situation in which the choice is being made. Compatibilism says you don't look for free will in the brain, you look for it between individuals, as ordinary people do, and as courts do. You reject this view, but it seems that it still provides information. A person who is coerced into doing something is, under usual assumptions, not doing it of their own free will. Their brains will look the same as people who are being coerced--at least they won't be different in a necessary/sufficient way to tell they are not being coerced. But their behavior has a relevant difference that impinges on how the law treats them, so I think there must be something to it, at least pragmatically.

Doesn't work.

Definitions of behaviour without regard to the sources and processes that produce them are not valid definitions.

All decisions and all behaviours, whether coerced or not, are formed and generated by the brain and its information processing activity.

All human interactions, how people think, perceive themselves, behave toward others, relationships, needs, wants, fears, is an activity of a brain. The brain being the sole agent of self identity, thought and decision making...sometimes coerced through circumstances and sometimes expressions of desire, hope, enjoyment and so on.

Until we find one-to-one causal mechanisms for quantum mechanics, we cannot deny free will. With little constraint, particles follow most definitions of free will quite closely. Fundamentally, we are these particles.

 

[Juma]

Until we find one-to-one causal mechanisms for quantum mechanics, we cannot deny free will. With little constraint, particles follow most definitions of free will quite closely.

You are spinning wild phantasies. Please explain explane exactly how quantum mechanics enable libertarian free will.

Fundamentally, we are these particles.

Bullshit. Qusntum effects have no effect the in brain.