In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Kharakov]

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Have you heard of a bureaucracy?

Every single piece of paperwork is important, but shit gets mislaid, forgotten, goes to the wrong mailbox. So, maybe it moves in a general direction, sort of guided by the past, and the goals that have been set for it- it's a bit more classical, than quantum. Stuff just moves along like it's a river. Then again, there are sometimes leaders who have an infrastructure in place, who can wag the dog. So....

 

[ryan]

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Have you heard of a bureaucracy?

Every single piece of paperwork is important, but shit gets mislaid, forgotten, goes to the wrong mailbox. So, maybe it moves in a general direction, sort of guided by the past, and the goals that have been set for it- it's a bit more classical, than quantum. Stuff just moves along like its a river. Then again, there are sometimes leaders who have an infrastructure in place, who can wag the dog. So....

Yes, the brain is much more classical than quantum too. That is why we would have relatively little free will.

 

[Juma]

Have you heard of a bureaucracy?

Every single piece of paperwork is important, but shit gets mislaid, forgotten, goes to the wrong mailbox. So, maybe it moves in a general direction, sort of guided by the past, and the goals that have been set for it- it's a bit more classical, than quantum. Stuff just moves along like its a river. Then again, there are sometimes leaders who have an infrastructure in place, who can wag the dog. So....

Yes, the brain is much more classical than quantum too. That is why we would have relatively little free will.

Please explain how the random behaviour of electrons and protons etc makes free will?

It seems you have some idea that single particles can change the outcome because of THEIR will. But how does a particle get all the info needed to make the decision? And how do you explain all that internal structure a particle must have to be a ble to make decisions?

 

[bilby]

Controversial isn't the term I'd use. Whatever quantum effects contribute to the formation of your intent, the particles are not you, and you are not the particles, although you may be one in some sense.

If you take away the particles, you take me away. I am the particles.

If you leave all of the particles in place, and simply inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine in your synapses, you go away, permanently, leaving all your particles in place.

You are not your particles. You are a specific set of patterns in dynamic equilibrium in your brain. Disrupt the pattern, and you lose consciousness, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently.

Your particles could be a lot of things. Indeed, before you ate or inhaled them, they were something else, and after you exhale or excrete them, they will be something else.

Like the trusty broom that has had three new heads and five new handles, you are not your particles; indeed there are no particles that can reasonably be considered to be 'yours' insofar as they will be a part of you for your whole life.

You are a pattern. A dynamic pattern of memories, influencing a dynamic pattern of synaptic interactions that reacts both to its surroundings and to itself.

 

[DBT]

If you want to understand my argument, it is important that you read and understand the scenario.

Imagine a twin gets put into a specific environment. The other twin gets put into an identical environment as his twin on a different planet. Both environments are perfectly static, no quantum mechanics or any differences at all. Initially, both twins are exactly identical and are put in the same place as the other in their identically static environments. Will one twin eventually make a different choice than the other due to chaotic effects from quantum mechanisms in their respective brains?

You have started a thread on that very model but, just like this thread, you ignore all replies that point out the flaws with your position and just keep maintaining the same claim.

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Just like here, it is not simply a case of 'what my particles are doing' but specifically how they are arranged, and why, that determines what they are doing and their output in terms of behaviour....and you (as conscious self) dance to the tune they play with no conscious input into the behaviour of the particles you are composed of.

 

[ryan]

If you take away the particles, you take me away. I am the particles.

If you leave all of the particles in place, and simply inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine in your synapses, you go away, permanently, leaving all your particles in place.

You are not your particles. You are a specific set of patterns in dynamic equilibrium in your brain. Disrupt the pattern, and you lose consciousness, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently.

Your particles could be a lot of things. Indeed, before you ate or inhaled them, they were something else, and after you exhale or excrete them, they will be something else.

Like the trusty broom that has had three new heads and five new handles, you are not your particles; indeed there are no particles that can reasonably be considered to be 'yours' insofar as they will be a part of you for your whole life.

You are a pattern. A dynamic pattern of memories, influencing a dynamic pattern of synaptic interactions that reacts both to its surroundings and to itself.

You need my particles to define me, but that does not mean that I am only my particles. Your argument does not refute this.

 

[ryan]

Yes, the brain is much more classical than quantum too. That is why we would have relatively little free will.

Please explain how the random behaviour of electrons and protons etc makes free will?

I have explained this too many times already.

It seems you have some idea that single particles can change the outcome because of THEIR will. But how does a particle get all the info needed to make the decision? And how do you explain all that internal structure a particle must have to be a ble to make decisions?

Just like each particle does not need the ability to make the kind of choices we can all agree on, neither would each particle need free will.

 

[ryan]

You have started a thread on that very model but, just like this thread, you ignore all replies that point out the flaws with your position and just keep maintaining the same claim.

Just answer yes or no.

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Just like here, it is not simply a case of 'what my particles are doing' but specifically how they are arranged, and why, that determines what they are doing and their output in terms of behaviour....and you (as conscious self) dance to the tune they play with no conscious input into the behaviour of the particles you are composed of.

Each particle adds some of my undetermined behavior. My limited free will choices are undetermined but made by me nonetheless.

 

[Juma]

Please explain how the random behaviour of electrons and protons etc makes free will?

I have explained this too many times already.

No you havent. You have waved your hands and vaguely pointed at some distance but you have not given a waydescription at all.

There is nothing more substancial than that qm has some (not clearly defined) behavior and that, sim sala bim, enables free will.

On a test that would give you 0 points.

 

[bilby]

If you leave all of the particles in place, and simply inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine in your synapses, you go away, permanently, leaving all your particles in place.

You are not your particles. You are a specific set of patterns in dynamic equilibrium in your brain. Disrupt the pattern, and you lose consciousness, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently.

Your particles could be a lot of things. Indeed, before you ate or inhaled them, they were something else, and after you exhale or excrete them, they will be something else.

Like the trusty broom that has had three new heads and five new handles, you are not your particles; indeed there are no particles that can reasonably be considered to be 'yours' insofar as they will be a part of you for your whole life.

You are a pattern. A dynamic pattern of memories, influencing a dynamic pattern of synaptic interactions that reacts both to its surroundings and to itself.

You need my particles to define me, but that does not mean that I am only my particles. Your argument does not refute this.

It's not intended to. I am refuting the argument you presented, not some different but tangentially related argument that you were imagining but not putting forward.

 

[NobleSavage]

I've never been able to pay attention to a free will discussion for more than 5 minutes. Am I missing anything?

 

[Kharakov]

I've never been able to pay attention to a free will discussion for more than 5 minutes. Am I missing anything?

Yeah man, like, you missed the first valid proof of free will in existence. You just have to read the whole thread to understand it.

 

[ryan]

I have explained this too many times already.

No you havent. You have waved your hands and vaguely pointed at some distance but you have not given a waydescription at all.

There is nothing more substancial than that qm has some (not clearly defined) behavior and that, sim sala bim, enables free will.

Imagine a twin gets put into a specific environment. The other twin gets put into an identical environment as his twin on a different planet. Both environments are perfectly static, no quantum mechanics or any differences at all. Initially, both twins are exactly identical and are put in the same place as the other in their identically static environments. Will one twin eventually make a different choice than the other due to chaotic effects from quantum mechanisms in their respective brains?

 

[ryan]

You need my particles to define me, but that does not mean that I am only my particles. Your argument does not refute this.

It's not intended to. I am refuting the argument you presented, not some different but tangentially related argument that you were imagining but not putting forward.

What is the difference between my two arguments?

My first post: "If you take away the particles, you take me away. I am the particles."

Your post: "..."

My response: "You need my particles to define me, but that does not mean that I am only my particles. Your argument does not refute this."

 

[ryan]

I've never been able to pay attention to a free will discussion for more than 5 minutes. Am I missing anything?

Sorry, this class is full.

 

[DBT]

Just answer yes or no.

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Just like here, it is not simply a case of 'what my particles are doing' but specifically how they are arranged, and why, that determines what they are doing and their output in terms of behaviour....and you (as conscious self) dance to the tune they play with no conscious input into the behaviour of the particles you are composed of.

Each particle adds some of my undetermined behavior. My limited free will choices are undetermined but made by me nonetheless.

This is where it all goes pear shaped: quantum probability is not chosen, not does it enable choice...undetermined behaviour does not equate with 'free will'

Undetermined behaviour is not free will unless you include the shapes and motions of clouds and rivers, etc, as being in possession of 'free will' because ''each particle adds to some of their so called undetermined behavior'' but of course that is an absurd proposal.

Not to mention that you continue to ignore the structure, role and function of the brain as the source of both 'you' and 'your' behaviour.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

No you havent. You have waved your hands and vaguely pointed at some distance but you have not given a waydescription at all.

There is nothing more substancial than that qm has some (not clearly defined) behavior and that, sim sala bim, enables free will.

Imagine a twin gets put into a specific environment. The other twin gets put into an identical environment as his twin on a different planet. Both environments are perfectly static, no quantum mechanics or any differences at all. Initially, both twins are exactly identical and are put in the same place as the other in their identically static environments. Will one twin eventually make a different choice than the other due to chaotic effects from quantum mechanisms in their respective brains?

Maybe. Higly unlikely and if happens has nothing to do with free will, just random differences.

 

[DBT]

I've never been able to pay attention to a free will discussion for more than 5 minutes. Am I missing anything?

You are missing your 'free will' - otherwise you could 'choose otherwise' - you could choose to be absolutely enthralled with free will discussions and not be able to take your eyes off the page for a second.

 

[ryan]

Just answer yes or no.

Intention consists of what my particles are doing. If I have intentions, then the sum of my particles must have intentions. The sum of my particles would choose what I do with their collective but limited "free" randomness.

Just like here, it is not simply a case of 'what my particles are doing' but specifically how they are arranged, and why, that determines what they are doing and their output in terms of behaviour....and you (as conscious self) dance to the tune they play with no conscious input into the behaviour of the particles you are composed of.

Each particle adds some of my undetermined behavior. My limited free will choices are undetermined but made by me nonetheless.

This is where it all goes pear shaped: quantum probability is not chosen, not does it enable choice...undetermined behaviour does not equate with 'free will'

I have said many times that it only allows the possibility for free will, not equates to free will.

Undetermined behaviour is not free will unless you include the shapes and motions of clouds and rivers, etc, as being in possession of 'free will' because ''each particle adds to some of their so called undetermined behavior'' but of course that is an absurd proposal.

Well they don't have so many other functions that they would need in order to make a choice that can be free. They may have the freedom but nothing else.

 

[ryan]

Imagine a twin gets put into a specific environment. The other twin gets put into an identical environment as his twin on a different planet. Both environments are perfectly static, no quantum mechanics or any differences at all. Initially, both twins are exactly identical and are put in the same place as the other in their identically static environments. Will one twin eventually make a different choice than the other due to chaotic effects from quantum mechanisms in their respective brains?

Maybe. Higly unlikely and if happens has nothing to do with free will, just random differences.

Which is exactly what occasional limited free will would look like.