In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[bilby]

Yes i do but what i try to explain to you is that your post makes no sense. Libertanian free will is not something we observe.

No you are not reading my posts. I know this because your last post asks a question that I answered in the very same post you were replying to.

ryan: "It would appear random to us just like a real human will sometimes appear random even with a fully mechanical description."

In other words, a human with some free would behave exactly the same as a real human. They both do things that don't make sense with classical mechanics.

That is completely uninformative, because you are missing half of the argument; unless you are seeking to imply that a human without free will would not behave exactly the same as a 'real human' - something that you have yet to show.

If the behaviour is identical for a person with free will; a person without free will; and a 'real' person, how do you determine whether or not free will exists?

For an hypothesis to be useful, it must predict an observable difference between a world where the hypothesis is correct, and a world where the null hypothesis is correct.

The free will hypothesis does not meet that standard, and is therefore useless.

People are unpredictable.

The hypothesis that this unpredictability is due to quantum fluctuations is flawed; such fluctuations are not evident at sufficiently large scales to influence human brains.

An alternative hypothesis, that is less flawed, is that human brains exhibit 'chaotic' patterns - small differences in any of a huge number of inputs can result in large changes in output, producing a system that can be fairly predictable over small time-scales, but for which longer range forecasts are almost worthless.

The weather is another example of a chaotic system - the broad patterns are fairly predictable on short time-scales, but longer range or finely detailed forecasting is very unreliable much of the time.

With a well understood macroscopic mechanism for the unpredictability of humans, it is unnecessary and unparsimonious to appeal to quantum uncertainty.

And it should be noted that unpredictability is able to be understood and effectively modelled in either case without any reference whatsoever to will, free or otherwise.

Freedom of will and human unpredictability need not be related concepts at all; and it is irrelevant to freedom of will whether the unpredictability of humans is due to quantum uncertainty, chaos, or something else entirely.

Indeed I cannot think of a single attribute of human behaviour for which free will is necessary. Can you? (Bearing in mind that unpredictability is not such an attribute).

 

[ryan]

In post #445, I explained how it might not be random. If we are the randomness, and since our intentions come to fruition, then maybe it's not random. Maybe it only appears to be random by a different observer.

You are ignoring the fact that the absence of a single element can and does does disintegrate consciousness; memory function.

If memory function breaks down, recognition and comprehension and self identity and character and thought and decision making break down into unrecognizable, incomprehensible sensation....memory being integrated or woven into the very fabric of consciousness.

Well then the will will work with what it has or it ceases to exist. It would not have enough control to fix itself. If it breaks down, I would imagine that the will breaks down too. I don't see how this is an argument against free will.

And sure we depend on what we are made of. It's like driving a car. The car has only so much control until it isn't functional anymore.

This is not random particle position or QM, but organized connections, protein shape and function, pathways, synapses open or closed, etc, etc. an organized system processing information - which is not random - and generating conscious representation of some, but not all, of that information.

A good thought experiment is to imagine two identical brains. Each brain gets put into a body that can only react one way to the brain signals; in other words, the body's particles do not behave quantum mechanically. But the brains operate the way they would in real life. Now the bodies get put into two identical worlds that also only adhere to classical mechanics. So the only way that the bodies can deviate is by quantum mechanical functions in the brain. How much would they deviate in a year?

If you don't have an answer to this, then you cannot claim that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with how we think.

 

[ryan]

Indeed I cannot think of a single attribute of human behaviour for which free will is necessary. Can you? (Bearing in mind that unpredictability is not such an attribute).

Are you saying that quantum mechanics has zero (not really small, but actually zero) effect on exactly how the brain will function?

 

[DBT]

You are ignoring the fact that the absence of a single element can and does does disintegrate consciousness; memory function.

If memory function breaks down, recognition and comprehension and self identity and character and thought and decision making break down into unrecognizable, incomprehensible sensation....memory being integrated or woven into the very fabric of consciousness.

Well then the will will work with what it has or it ceases to exist. It would not have enough control to fix itself. If it breaks down, I would imagine that the will breaks down too. I don't see how this is an argument against free will.

And sure we depend on what we are made of. It's like driving a car. The car has only so much control until it isn't functional anymore.

We know exactly what happens when memory function begins to break down. The condition is very common, and there are patients who are various stages of the process.

A process that destroys consciousness, personality, recognition, decision making and will regardless of the will or wishes of the patient who is suffering from progressive memory loss.

All of the attributes and features of consciousness, your experience of the world and self making decisions and acting upon the decisions you believe you have made, is being produced by neural activity 'behind the curtain' - below the threshold of conscious perception.

The illusion of conscious agency is stripped away when the brain is in decline and no longer functions as it did.

All of this entails macro scale structures and definite information states, not quantum randomness.

 

[bilby]

Indeed I cannot think of a single attribute of human behaviour for which free will is necessary. Can you? (Bearing in mind that unpredictability is not such an attribute).

Are you saying that quantum mechanics has zero (not really small, but actually zero) effect on exactly how the brain will function?

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

Neurons are far too large to be subject to changes in their firing caused by such effects. Just because neurons are small, and electrons are also small, that does not render them similar in magnitude.

Cleopatra lived a long time ago. The pyramids were built a long time ago. But Cleopatra did not live close to the time of the pyramid builders; In fact, fewer years separate Cleopatra's life from the building of the first Pizza Hut than separate her life from the building of the Great Pyramid at Giza.

Humans are very bad at intuiting large ranges, either of time or of space. Neurons are small by human standards, but they are fucking HUGE by quantum mechanical standards.

 

[ryan]

Well then the will will work with what it has or it ceases to exist. It would not have enough control to fix itself. If it breaks down, I would imagine that the will breaks down too. I don't see how this is an argument against free will.

And sure we depend on what we are made of. It's like driving a car. The car has only so much control until it isn't functional anymore.

We know exactly what happens when memory function begins to break down. The condition is very common, and there are patients who are various stages of the process.

A process that destroys consciousness, personality, recognition, decision making and will regardless of the will or wishes of the patient who is suffering from progressive memory loss.

All of the attributes and features of consciousness, your experience of the world and self making decisions and acting upon the decisions you believe you have made, is being produced by neural activity 'behind the curtain' - below the threshold of conscious perception.

The illusion of conscious agency is stripped away when the brain is in decline and no longer functions as it did.

All of this entails macro scale structures and definite information states, not quantum randomness.

I totally agree with everything you say here, except the "illusion" claim.

Can you answer my question: "How much would they deviate in a year?"?

 

[Kharakov]

Are you saying that quantum mechanics has zero (not really small, but actually zero) effect on exactly how the brain will function?

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

The source of sugar,  photosynthesis#efficiency, uses quantum computation (well.. technically some photosynthesis processes  quantum walk energy from point a to point b).

One of the most fundamental processes of life, that almost all life on the planet depends upon for sustenance, uses quantum mechanical phenomena regularly because life evolved to take advantage of the quantum phenomena. Doesn't mean every photosynthesizing agent had this ability- but the ones that did were more efficient, and had more offspring. QM phenomena are part of life.

Quantum mechanical phenomena are part of life, and it's possible that our neural structures have evolved to efficiently harness certain quantum phenomena. Maybe it's some low grade signal between neurotransmitters, maybe something else. The point is, if some form of beneficial quantum phenomena happened to be stumbled across by nature, it might be in your brain....

 

[ryan]

Are you saying that quantum mechanics has zero (not really small, but actually zero) effect on exactly how the brain will function?

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

We don't know how much of a butterfly effect one particle's behavior could have on a system, never mind trillions of them.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

The brain can be extremely sensitive in certain ways. The photons from a certain visual as a child can have major consequences in the future.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

It doesn't matter. Taking one particle out of a damn may cause it to burst. It all depends on the sensitivity and the functionality of the system.

 

[ryan]

Bilby, here is a good video about what Kharakov talking about, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY .

If you can't watch it all, watch from 43:00 to 51:00.

DBT, this will probably interest you too.

 

[bilby]

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

The source of sugar,  photosynthesis#efficiency, uses quantum computation (well.. technically some photosynthesis processes  quantum walk energy from point a to point b).

One of the most fundamental processes of life, that almost all life on the planet depends upon for sustenance, uses quantum mechanical phenomena regularly because life evolved to take advantage of the quantum phenomena. Doesn't mean every photosynthesizing agent had this ability- but the ones that did were more efficient, and had more offspring. QM phenomena are part of life.

Quantum mechanical phenomena are part of life, and it's possible that our neural structures have evolved to efficiently harness certain quantum phenomena. Maybe it's some low grade signal between neurotransmitters, maybe something else. The point is, if some form of beneficial quantum phenomena happened to be stumbled across by nature, it might be in your brain....

Sure, it might. If we start from a position of knowing nothing about how neurons work.

But given that the biophysics and biochemistry of neurons is well understood, we can rule it out - single molecules are simply not significant enough to matter, and the cascades of neurotransmitters crossing synapses, and the huge flows of ions across the cell membrane as a signal propagates along an axon are all far too large scale for quantum effects to be important - a handful of Sodium ions that don't take part in the cascade due to some quantum effect won't make the slightest difference.

So yes, quantum effects might matter in the brain. But when we check, we find that they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

We don't know how much of a butterfly effect one particle's behavior could have on a system, never mind trillions of them.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

The brain can be extremely sensitive in certain ways. The photons from a certain visual as a child can have major consequences in the future.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

It doesn't matter. Taking one particle out of a damn may cause it to burst. It all depends on the sensitivity and the functionality of the system.

One particle doesn't matter a dam (nor to the structure of a damn). Or vice-versa.

A dam sheds trillions of dust particles a day, without any significant effect on the integrity of the structure. And each of those grains of dust contains trillions of trillions of atoms.

The scale DOES matter. When the scale is such that an event is so unlikely to be important that it is probable that it has never happened anywhere, you can afford to ignore it.

No dam ever built has failed due to quantum effects.

No neuron has ever fired due to quantum effects either.

These objects are too big for quantum effects to be significant.

 

[ryan]

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

We don't know how much of a butterfly effect one particle's behavior could have on a system, never mind trillions of them.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

The brain can be extremely sensitive in certain ways. The photons from a certain visual as a child can have major consequences in the future.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

It doesn't matter. Taking one particle out of a damn may cause it to burst. It all depends on the sensitivity and the functionality of the system.

One particle doesn't matter a dam (nor to the structure of a damn). Or vice-versa.

This better be a joke.

 

[bilby]

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

We don't know how much of a butterfly effect one particle's behavior could have on a system, never mind trillions of them.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

The brain can be extremely sensitive in certain ways. The photons from a certain visual as a child can have major consequences in the future.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

It doesn't matter. Taking one particle out of a damn may cause it to burst. It all depends on the sensitivity and the functionality of the system.

One particle doesn't matter a dam (nor to the structure of a damn). Or vice-versa.

This better be a joke.

Only partly. Read my edit.

 

[bilby]

No; such an absolute position would be false. But I am saying that it has an effect so small as to be completely negligible. Which for the purposes of this discussion, amounts to the same thing.

The probability of a quantum effect causing a change in a human brain state is sufficiently low as to render such a change highly unlikely to occur even once in the lifetime of a human being.

We don't know how much of a butterfly effect one particle's behavior could have on a system, never mind trillions of them.

Quantum effects could, with low probability, allow me to pass through the wall into the next room without using the door. The probability of this ever happening anywhere is vanishingly small; but it is not zero.

The brain can be extremely sensitive in certain ways. The photons from a certain visual as a child can have major consequences in the future.

For all real-world cases, treating it as zero is the best approach.

I don't think you grasp just how small the scale is at which quantum effects dominate.

It doesn't matter. Taking one particle out of a damn may cause it to burst. It all depends on the sensitivity and the functionality of the system.

One particle doesn't matter a dam (nor to the structure of a damn). Or vice-versa.

This better be a joke.

Only partly. Read my edit.

Neurons don't fire (or fail to fire) due to quantum effects, for the same reason that footballs don't hit (or miss) the goal due to quantum effects.

The scales are totally different; neurons are far too big for quantum effects to be significant.

 

[DBT]

We know exactly what happens when memory function begins to break down. The condition is very common, and there are patients who are various stages of the process.

A process that destroys consciousness, personality, recognition, decision making and will regardless of the will or wishes of the patient who is suffering from progressive memory loss.

All of the attributes and features of consciousness, your experience of the world and self making decisions and acting upon the decisions you believe you have made, is being produced by neural activity 'behind the curtain' - below the threshold of conscious perception.

The illusion of conscious agency is stripped away when the brain is in decline and no longer functions as it did.

All of this entails macro scale structures and definite information states, not quantum randomness.

I totally agree with everything you say here, except the "illusion" claim.

Can you answer my question: "How much would they deviate in a year?"?

If free will is not an illusion formed out of the disconnect between conscious experience and it's underlying production mechanisms, a patient who is losing their experience and sense of self should be able to alter the course of their disintegration, yet they cannot.

They cannot because the experience of being a conscious person in control of her/his mind, and able to make conscious decisions, is being produced by neural electrochemical activity.

And as this mechanism and its conscious and unconscious activity unravels because memory no longer integrates consciousness (being damaged) the illusion of conscious control, the ability to make conscious decisions, the ability of your so called 'free will' is exposed for what it is, an illusion.

An illusion that's formed by the disconnect between conscious experience (a form of neural activity), and the mechanism itself, the neural structures and networks of the brain.

 

[ryan]

No neuron has ever fired due to quantum effects either.

These objects are too big for quantum effects to be significant.

Apparently you did not watch the video I posted. Watch from 43:00 to 48:00. He explains how the different vibrations in an otherwise similar atom can cause it to smell totally different.

 

[DBT]

No neuron has ever fired due to quantum effects either.

These objects are too big for quantum effects to be significant.

Apparently you did not watch the video I posted. Watch from 43:00 to 48:00. He explains how the different vibrations in an otherwise similar atom can cause it to smell totally different.

Atoms don't process information and respond according to a given set of criteria in order to gain some sort of benefit from the transaction.

 

[bilby]

No neuron has ever fired due to quantum effects either.

These objects are too big for quantum effects to be significant.

Apparently you did not watch the video I posted. Watch from 43:00 to 48:00. He explains how the different vibrations in an otherwise similar atom can cause it to smell totally different.

I am not in a position to watch videos.

If the explanation in the video exists nowhere else, it's probably valueless anyway. In my experience the information density of YouTube videos is very low indeed. Can you link to a written source for this information, whatever it is?

From your summary I am not confident that the idea has any merit; humans can't detect single atoms by smell, and they certainly can't detect how they are vibrating.

 

[ryan]

Apparently you did not watch the video I posted. Watch from 43:00 to 48:00. He explains how the different vibrations in an otherwise similar atom can cause it to smell totally different.

Atoms don't process information and respond according to a given set of criteria in order to gain some sort of benefit from the transaction.

They do collectively; we are atoms. Our choices are these atoms.

 

[ryan]

I totally agree with everything you say here, except the "illusion" claim.

Can you answer my question: "How much would they deviate in a year?"?

If free will is not an illusion formed out of the disconnect between conscious experience and it's underlying production mechanisms, a patient who is losing their experience and sense of self should be able to alter the course of their disintegration, yet they cannot.

They cannot because the experience of being a conscious person in control of her/his mind, and able to make conscious decisions, is being produced by neural electrochemical activity.

And as this mechanism and its conscious and unconscious activity unravels because memory no longer integrates consciousness (being damaged) the illusion of conscious control, the ability to make conscious decisions, the ability of your so called 'free will' is exposed for what it is, an illusion.

An illusion that's formed by the disconnect between conscious experience (a form of neural activity), and the mechanism itself, the neural structures and networks of the brain.

The free will would be limited, especially with brain damage.

 

[ryan]

Apparently you did not watch the video I posted. Watch from 43:00 to 48:00. He explains how the different vibrations in an otherwise similar atom can cause it to smell totally different.

I am not in a position to watch videos.

If the explanation in the video exists nowhere else, it's probably valueless anyway. In my experience the information density of YouTube videos is very low indeed. Can you link to a written source for this information, whatever it is?

From your summary I am not confident that the idea has any merit; humans can't detect single atoms by smell, and they certainly can't detect how they are vibrating.

It's been known for quite some time now. Seth Lloyd from MIT talks about the findings on PI.