In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[ryan]

Then how do you know that quantum effects of the particles are not also part of this whole?

I studied physics, biochemistry and molecular biology.

How else do people typically come to know stuff about the invisible microscopic world, other than by study?

Here is a nice simple account.

He says exactly what I know. You have randomness that cancels, and some of the randomness coheres. The coherence is what we see. Nothing there conflicts with anything about my philosophical theory.

The coherence still came from randomness.

Now please answer my question.

 

[bilby]

I studied physics, biochemistry and molecular biology.

How else do people typically come to know stuff about the invisible microscopic world, other than by study?

Here is a nice simple account.

He says exactly what I know. You have randomness that cancels, and some of the randomness coheres. The coherence is what we see. Nothing there conflicts with anything about my philosophical theory.

The coherence still came from randomness.

Now please answer my question.

I did answer your question. Your philosophy believes that coherence might be present, because that would suit your personal preferences. My science says that your philosophy is bunk; coherence on the scale of neuron activity simply does not occur. Neurons are FAR TOO BIG for your idea to have any merit; and the activity of the brain can be understood without reference to anything happening at smaller scales. Neurons fire, or do not fire, in response to events on a massively larger scale than could possibly be influenced by quantum effects in a hugely complex aqueous solution of organic compounds with proteins suspended in it, wrapped in phospholipids, and in dynamic equilibrium at 310K and 100kPa.

This is a dead end. It might stand up as pure philosophy; but science tells us that any philosophical conclusions you draw are not applicable to observed reality.

 

[ryan]

He says exactly what I know. You have randomness that cancels, and some of the randomness coheres. The coherence is what we see. Nothing there conflicts with anything about my philosophical theory.

The coherence still came from randomness.

Now please answer my question.

I did answer your question. Your philosophy believes that coherence might be present, because that would suit your personal preferences. My science says that your philosophy is bunk; coherence on the scale of neuron activity simply does not occur. Neurons are FAR TOO BIG for your idea to have any merit; and the activity of the brain can be understood without reference to anything happening at smaller scales.

Maybe if I show you a quote from your own reference you might believe me, "In reality, every object in the universe (from atoms to stars) operates according to quantum physics. In many situations, such as when throwing a baseball, quantum physics leads to the same result as classical physics. In such situations, we use classical physics instead of quantum physics because the mathematics is easier and the principles are more intuitive." .

Do you understand that everything results from the randomness of quantum mechanics. There is no classical mechanics; there is just quantum mechanics.

 

[bilby]

I did answer your question. Your philosophy believes that coherence might be present, because that would suit your personal preferences. My science says that your philosophy is bunk; coherence on the scale of neuron activity simply does not occur. Neurons are FAR TOO BIG for your idea to have any merit; and the activity of the brain can be understood without reference to anything happening at smaller scales.

Maybe if I show you a quote from your own reference you might believe me, "In reality, every object in the universe (from atoms to stars) operates according to quantum physics. In many situations, such as when throwing a baseball, quantum physics leads to the same result as classical physics. In such situations, we use classical physics instead of quantum physics because the mathematics is easier and the principles are more intuitive." .

Do you understand that everything results from the randomness of quantum mechanics. There is no classical mechanics; there is just quantum mechanics.

Yes.

Do you understand that, just as we need not think about atoms when driving a car, we need not think about quantum effects when discussing brain activity?

Cars are made entirely of atoms. But that information, while true, is totally unimportant when learning to drive.

Scale is everything here. Don't just read the bits you can shoehorn into your desired arguments; read the whole thing.

The first sentence you quoted appears to support your position; the rest explains why it is wrong.

 

[DBT]

The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Then how do you know that quantum effects of the particles are not also part of this whole?

QM is a description of matter/energy on quantum scale. It doesn't describe matter/energy on a macro scale, relativity, gravity, planetary, stellar and galactic scale objects, gravity, motion, etc...nor does it describe the incredibly complex structure of the brain and its evolved functions.

Everything is composed of matter/energy, but not everything functions identically, it is structure and architecture that rules on a macro scale.

It is the brain that processes information, and it's output is determined by its architecture...the brain of an insect generating a far different representation of the external world and 'self' than the brain of a human. Thought and decision making being specific to the type of brain that is generating that activity.

Which is basically the reason why your proposition fails.

 

[ryan]

Maybe if I show you a quote from your own reference you might believe me, "In reality, every object in the universe (from atoms to stars) operates according to quantum physics. In many situations, such as when throwing a baseball, quantum physics leads to the same result as classical physics. In such situations, we use classical physics instead of quantum physics because the mathematics is easier and the principles are more intuitive." .

Do you understand that everything results from the randomness of quantum mechanics. There is no classical mechanics; there is just quantum mechanics.

Yes.

Do you understand that, just as we need not think about atoms when driving a car, we need not think about quantum effects when discussing brain activity?

Cars are made entirely of atoms. But that information, while true, is totally unimportant when learning to drive.

Scale is everything here. Don't just read the bits you can shoehorn into your desired arguments; read the whole thing.

The first sentence you quoted appears to support your position; the rest explains why it is wrong.

Yeah, the rest explains why everything does not behave as if it were waves. You can't possibly think that's what I am arguing for; can you?

My entire argument is based on the fact that quantum mechanics is the true reality, and the classical mechanics is just what quantum mechanics does.

It's over bilby. You may not allow it to sink in, but I know it's over.

Now accept my commands.

 

[ryan]

Then how do you know that quantum effects of the particles are not also part of this whole?

QM is a description of matter/energy on quantum scale. It doesn't describe matter/energy on a macro scale, relativity, gravity, planetary, stellar and galactic scale objects, gravity, motion, etc...nor does it describe the incredibly complex structure of the brain and its evolved functions.

Everything is composed of matter/energy, but not everything functions identically, it is structure and architecture that rules on a macro scale.

It is the brain that processes information, and it's output is determined by its architecture...the brain of an insect generating a far different representation of the external world and 'self' than the brain of a human. Thought and decision making being specific to the type of brain that is generating that activity.

Which is basically the reason why your proposition fails.

From what I have been reading, quantum mechanics describes much of the macro scale with the Schrödinger equation. See, Ehrenfest theorem .

 

[DBT]

QM is a description of matter/energy on quantum scale. It doesn't describe matter/energy on a macro scale, relativity, gravity, planetary, stellar and galactic scale objects, gravity, motion, etc...nor does it describe the incredibly complex structure of the brain and its evolved functions.

Everything is composed of matter/energy, but not everything functions identically, it is structure and architecture that rules on a macro scale.

It is the brain that processes information, and it's output is determined by its architecture...the brain of an insect generating a far different representation of the external world and 'self' than the brain of a human. Thought and decision making being specific to the type of brain that is generating that activity.

Which is basically the reason why your proposition fails.

From what I have been reading, quantum mechanics describes much of the macro scale with the Schrödinger equation. See, Ehrenfest theorem .

Generally speaking, Schrödinger's equation describes the process of transition from quantum uncertainty/probability to classical physics.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' Brian Greene - '''The Elegant Universe''

As Schrodinger's equation describes the evolution of the wave function in 'probability space' as a transition to classical physics, none of this helps establish your proposition.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

 

[PyramidHead]

But surely there is a difference between a coerced action and a non-coerced action. I was a spectator to your long exchange with TheAntiChris on this very topic in another thread, and you prevaricated to a large extent without giving a succinct answer. So: is there a difference between coerced behaviors and non-coerced behaviors, to the extent that, for example, someone could be held legally culpable for the latter and not the former?

This shouldn't be so difficult to grasp, I thought I had explained it sufficiently.

Of course there is a difference between a coerced action and an non coerced action, the former means that you are being pressured or forced to act against your will, and in the latter case you are not being pressured or forced to act against your will.

But because your will is shaped by underlying causes, the interaction of information at a cellular level, you have 'will' - but it is not 'free will'

So your will is indeed being thwarted by coercion, but it is not 'free will' that is being thwarted. It was never free to begin with.

The difficult part to grasp is why you insist that someone who, like you and me, agrees there is a difference between a coerced will and a non-coerced will, is wrong when they use the English word 'free' to describe the latter.

It is, by far, a more commonly accepted use of the term than the restrictive sense used by philosopher types.

So if all I mean by 'free will' is exactly what I have bolded in your statement above and no more or less, why am I wrong? In other words, why is compatibilism wrong?

 

[Kharakov]

http://www.wired.com/2011/01/quantum-birds/

This being an instance of information input, but it is still the processor (brain) and the processor alone that makes sense of its inputs according to its architecture. It is not quantum superposition that is making choices in which direction to fly. That's the evolved function of the processor, the unchosen condition brain portion of the bird.

I'm arguing that brains have evolved to use certain quantum phenomena as inputs at times. Maybe way more often than people think at first glance- low field nuclear resonance being one possible unifying quantum mechanical phenomenon over "large" structures.

I'm not arguing for free will- obviously if one chooses strawberry or chocolate ice cream, the choice has to do with the fun pointed at their head.

 

[ryan]

From what I have been reading, quantum mechanics describes much of the macro scale with the Schrödinger equation. See, Ehrenfest theorem .

Generally speaking, Schrödinger's equation describes the process of transition from quantum uncertainty/probability to classical physics.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' Brian Greene - '''The Elegant Universe''

As Schrodinger's equation describes the evolution of the wave function in 'probability space' as a transition to classical physics, none of this helps establish your proposition.

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

 

[Kharakov]

Then how do you know that quantum effects of the particles are not also part of this whole?

I studied physics, biochemistry and molecular biology.

You didn't know about additive quantum effects until I taught you 2 days ago. You then argued that they weren't relevant in the Earth's magnetic field, and I taught you that they are.

To me, your statements indicate you don't know what you're talking about or you're simply pretending not to know these things and deliberately making false statements to be silly.

 

[bilby]

I studied physics, biochemistry and molecular biology.

You didn't know about additive quantum effects until I taught you 2 days ago. You then argued that they weren't relevant in the Earth's magnetic field, and I taught you that they are.

To me, your statements indicate you don't know what you're talking about or you're simply pretending not to know these things and deliberately making false statements to be silly.

Or there is a third possibility - that I am trying to keep things simple, because Ryan appears to be confused enough already without bringing irrelevant fine details into the discussion.

Despite my best efforts, he is now insisting that 'everything is quantum mechanics', which is fundamentally true, but in this context, hugely misleading.

You have no idea what I know or don't know; nor do you know what things I have learned from you. Perhaps you already knew that though, before I just taught it to you?

 

[ryan]

Or there is a third possibility - that I am trying to keep things simple, because Ryan appears to be confused enough already without bringing irrelevant fine details into the discussion.

Despite my best efforts, he is now insisting that 'everything is quantum mechanics', which is fundamentally true, but in this context, hugely misleading.

Of course you want to keep it simple; simple is a world that ticks like a clock. That, I will admit, kills any chance of a physical relationship with free will. But the "irrelevant fine details" are a major problem for your positive claims. Your side of the argument practically has to win a few Nobel Prizes for it to be right.

 

[DBT]

Generally speaking, Schrödinger's equation describes the process of transition from quantum uncertainty/probability to classical physics.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' Brian Greene - '''The Elegant Universe''

As Schrodinger's equation describes the evolution of the wave function in 'probability space' as a transition to classical physics, none of this helps establish your proposition.

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

That specialist cells detect photons/wavelengths, etc, does not alter the fact that it is the architecture of the processor that interprets this information as the colour red, or blue, or whatever. And that it is the processor that sorts options that are beneficial (past experience) from options that are to be avoided (also past experience) in order to select an option that meets the needs of a given situation....which particle position/uncertainty principle alone cannot do.

 

[DBT]

This shouldn't be so difficult to grasp, I thought I had explained it sufficiently.

Of course there is a difference between a coerced action and an non coerced action, the former means that you are being pressured or forced to act against your will, and in the latter case you are not being pressured or forced to act against your will.

But because your will is shaped by underlying causes, the interaction of information at a cellular level, you have 'will' - but it is not 'free will'

So your will is indeed being thwarted by coercion, but it is not 'free will' that is being thwarted. It was never free to begin with.

The difficult part to grasp is why you insist that someone who, like you and me, agrees there is a difference between a coerced will and a non-coerced will, is wrong when they use the English word 'free' to describe the latter.

It is, by far, a more commonly accepted use of the term than the restrictive sense used by philosopher types.

So if all I mean by 'free will' is exactly what I have bolded in your statement above and no more or less, why am I wrong? In other words, why is compatibilism wrong?

I'm pointing out that it is not 'will' itself that is inherently free, being an expression of cellular information exchange, but that it is [determined] will that's free from external coercion. The word 'free' being related to the specific condition of the absence of coercion, but not to the nature and condition of 'will' itself.

So common references, may convey the the meaning that coercion is present or absent adequately - ''he acted of his own free will'' - as a reference to 'free will' is not necessarily accurate in relation to the question of whether or not 'will' itself is indeed free....regardless of the issue of coercion.

As for compatibalism:
Quote;
''How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

 

[ryan]

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

I am so tired of this.

Here is the part where I say that I am not saying that: [ ... ].

Then we both will exchange a couple posts, and then I will be told that the Moon does not have wavelike properties all over again. I mean this has stop at some point. I am so tired.

That specialist cells detect photons/wavelengths, etc, does not alter the fact that it is the architecture of the processor that interprets this information as the colour red, or blue, or whatever. And that it is the processor that sorts options that are beneficial (past experience) from options that are to be avoided (also past experience) in order to select an option that meets the needs of a given situation....which particle position/uncertainty principle alone cannot do.

Agiaaaan, all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics.

 

[DBT]

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

I am so tired of this.

Here is the part where I say that I am not saying that: [ ... ].

Then we both will exchange a couple posts, and then I will be told that the Moon does not have wavelike properties all over again. I mean this has stop at some point. I am so tired.

It is your resistance to the fact that it information processing on a macro scale, brain scale, that determines output in terms of behaviour, and not the fact that there is jittery, uncertain states on a quantum scale (Planck/ Compton), which virtually disappears above that scale, that is making you very, very tired, ryan.

It is because your opponents get frustrated by your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that it is not quantum uncertainty that enables decision making, but decoherence/wave function collapse.

Agiaaaan, all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics.

There you go again, using the fallacy of the excluded middle....as if saying ''all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics'' has now become the established Grand Unification Theory!

 

[ryan]

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

I am so tired of this.

Here is the part where I say that I am not saying that: [ ... ].

Then we both will exchange a couple posts, and then I will be told that the Moon does not have wavelike properties all over again. I mean this has stop at some point. I am so tired.

It is your resistance to the fact that it information processing on a macro scale, brain scale, that determines output in terms of behaviour, and not the fact that there is jittery, uncertain states on a quantum scale (Planck/ Compton), which virtually disappears above that scale, that is making you very, very tired, ryan.

It is because your opponents get frustrated by your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that it is not quantum uncertainty that enables decision making, but decoherence/wave function collapse.

Agiaaaan, all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics.

There you go again, using the fallacy of the excluded middle....as if saying ''all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics'' has now become the established Grand Unification Theory!

I think you mean a unification theory that works with relativity and the Standard Model (field theories and quantum physics).

Anyways, I will admit that I do not know exactly how classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics, but I have found many sources that seem to say quantum mechanics is all that needs to exist to explain much of what we see on Earth.

I thought that I had actually come across articles in the past that claim an incomplete explanation of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics. So can you please find a reliable source that explains this "middle problem" because I cannot find it.

Furthermore, even if there is a problem with bridging the two scales, I would still say that what happens on the very small and individual scale of particles has much to do with how the higher level behaves. This would mean that our choices greatly depend on what is going on at the quantum level.

 

[Juma]

Classical mechanics is quantum mechanics on a larger scale. The macro world is still just quantum mechanics.

Probabilist particle evolution/soft determinism is of no aid in establishing what you call 'free will' because behaviour, both conscious and unconscious, always comes back to the architecture of the processor itself, the brain.

Yes, and quantum mechanics is the architecture of the brain.

Your statements are misleading. And you are equivocating....Copenhagen interpretation/decoherance, plants, animals, planets galaxies and so on, do not exhibit signs of Susperposition or the uncertainty principle/wave function, gravity rules the formation and motions of macro scale structures, etc, etc.

I am so tired of this.

Here is the part where I say that I am not saying that: [ ... ].

Then we both will exchange a couple posts, and then I will be told that the Moon does not have wavelike properties all over again. I mean this has stop at some point. I am so tired.

It is your resistance to the fact that it information processing on a macro scale, brain scale, that determines output in terms of behaviour, and not the fact that there is jittery, uncertain states on a quantum scale (Planck/ Compton), which virtually disappears above that scale, that is making you very, very tired, ryan.

It is because your opponents get frustrated by your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that it is not quantum uncertainty that enables decision making, but decoherence/wave function collapse.

Agiaaaan, all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics.

There you go again, using the fallacy of the excluded middle....as if saying ''all of this comes from the randomness of quantum mechanics'' has now become the established Grand Unification Theory!

I think you mean a unification theory that works with relativity and the Standard Model (field theories and quantum physics).

Anyways, I will admit that I do not know exactly how classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics, but I have found many sources that seem to say quantum mechanics is all that needs to exist to explain much of what we see on Earth.

I thought that I had actually come across articles in the past that claim an incomplete explanation of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics. So can you please find a reliable source that explains this "middle problem" because I cannot find it.

Furthermore, even if there is a problem with bridging the two scales, I would still say that what happens on the very small and individual scale of particles has much to do with how the higher level behaves. This would mean that our choices greatly depend on what is going on at the quantum level.

Look at it this way: in a computer the working parts are best described using quantum mechanics and yet you dont have to know any QM to be a programmer.

And if we turn the arguments around a bit: if the brain really is QM how do free will arise from that?
You have show a consitent dezcription of this before you even has an srgument.