In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[bilby]

This is all true. What I don't understand is why you think it in any way rebuts my position. Classical Mechanics is what QM looks like at macro scales. So the determinate nature of CM is what you get when QM applies to massive numbers of particles. So there is no handle in the macroscopic world of neurons by which they can access the probabilistic effects you are seeking.

Although even if there was, as neither probability nor randomness are synonymous with freedom, you still would be no closer to demonstrating the existence of free will.

You too need to read up on this more.

You are not remotely qualified to make that assessment.

What scares me the most is that I will explain to you what it is that you don't understand, and you will ignore it.

You don't know what I do or don't understand, and are therefore unqualified to provide such an explanation

A glimmer of hope is that you don't ignore it, and you learn something. But I will never know. And a glimmer inside of the glimmer of hope is that you will actually swallow your ego, and say, "you're right; I'm wrong". But we all know nobody does this (except for me because I actually have respect for others, and I actually realise that it builds trust and ultimately personal growth);

So is this you finally accepting that you are wrong to assert that quantum effects allow for freedom of will? Because they really don't. You can't even show that quantum effects (other than those adequately described in classical terms) even exist at relevant scales to affect brains; and even if you could, you can't explain how added randomness allows for added freedom.

therefor, how can I ever know if I got through to you or if you genuinely know that I am wrong?

You can know that you are wrong if I (or anyone else) produces a sound and valid argument and/or evidence which demonstrates that you are wrong. If you don't recognise such arguments for what they are, then you are out of luck, of course.

This is why I am walking a tightrope on getting the hell out of here. Or at the very least, I will be ignoring those who don't show that they can still learn something or be wrong.

I learn new things all the time; and I am frequently wrong. This does not appear to be one of those occasions, however.

 

[ryan]

This is all true. What I don't understand is why you think it in any way rebuts my position. Classical Mechanics is what QM looks like at macro scales. So the determinate nature of CM is what you get when QM applies to massive numbers of particles. So there is no handle in the macroscopic world of neurons by which they can access the probabilistic effects you are seeking.

Although even if there was, as neither probability nor randomness are synonymous with freedom, you still would be no closer to demonstrating the existence of free will.

You too need to read up on this more.

You are not remotely qualified to make that assessment.

What scares me the most is that I will explain to you what it is that you don't understand, and you will ignore it.

You don't know what I do or don't understand, and are therefore unqualified to provide such an explanation

What the hell are you even talking about? Right is right, and wrong is wrong. I corrected my professor a few times; was I qualified? I guess I was in that moment, but I wasn't qualified to be his teacher. Get back to reality for god sakes.

A glimmer of hope is that you don't ignore it, and you learn something. But I will never know. And a glimmer inside of the glimmer of hope is that you will actually swallow your ego, and say, "you're right; I'm wrong". But we all know nobody does this (except for me because I actually have respect for others, and I actually realise that it builds trust and ultimately personal growth);

So is this you finally accepting that you are wrong to assert that quantum effects allow for freedom of will?

This is a shining example of ignoring what I say to suit your own delusions of how the argument is going.

Because they really don't. You can't even show that quantum effects (other than those adequately described in classical terms)

even exist at relevant scales to affect brains;

Unbelievable, you have to be kidding. You are putting the most important part of what my argument literally rests on in brackets to leave it out. I don't even have the words to explain what I think about that.

and even if you could, you can't explain how added randomness allows for added freedom.

I have tried many times. Every time I do, you set up a strawman and say that I have no evidence. Then I get annoyed and say that randomness only leaves the possibility for free will. Then you wait a few days and we start the whole thing over again.

 

[bilby]

This is all true. What I don't understand is why you think it in any way rebuts my position. Classical Mechanics is what QM looks like at macro scales. So the determinate nature of CM is what you get when QM applies to massive numbers of particles. So there is no handle in the macroscopic world of neurons by which they can access the probabilistic effects you are seeking.

Although even if there was, as neither probability nor randomness are synonymous with freedom, you still would be no closer to demonstrating the existence of free will.

You too need to read up on this more.

You are not remotely qualified to make that assessment.

What scares me the most is that I will explain to you what it is that you don't understand, and you will ignore it.

You don't know what I do or don't understand, and are therefore unqualified to provide such an explanation

What the hell are you even talking about? Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

Your belief that you are right is not evidence that you are right.

I corrected my professor a few times; was I qualified? I guess I was in that moment, but I wasn't qualified to be his teacher. Get back to reality for god sakes.

I haven't left yet.

A glimmer of hope is that you don't ignore it, and you learn something. But I will never know. And a glimmer inside of the glimmer of hope is that you will actually swallow your ego, and say, "you're right; I'm wrong". But we all know nobody does this (except for me because I actually have respect for others, and I actually realise that it builds trust and ultimately personal growth);

So is this you finally accepting that you are wrong to assert that quantum effects allow for freedom of will?

This is a shining example of ignoring what I say to suit your own delusions of how the argument is going.

Or of you doing the same to me. Only logic or evidence can allow us to choose which is happening; Your appeals to be believed qualify as neither.

Because they really don't. You can't even show that quantum effects (other than those adequately described in classical terms)

even exist at relevant scales to affect brains;

Unbelievable, you have to be kidding. You are putting the most important part of what my argument literally rests on in brackets to leave it out. I don't even have the words to explain what I think about that.

Then how on Earth are you expecting to communicate those thoughts to others?

If you are talking about quantum effects that are adequately described in classical terms, then that can only lead to the exact same conclusions that you could have reached without reference to QM at all. Thereby rendering QM an irrelevant sidebar to the debate - like quibbling about the spericity of the earth when shown a two dimensional map of your home town, you are arguing for a distinction without a difference. Either QM is relevant to the process of decision making, or it is needless detail that is not relevant to the process of decision making. You seem to agree that the evidence indicates that it is the latter, while wanting to hold on to the former as an excuse for belief in free will. (although it is far from clear how QM would enable free will even if it were relevant, which it clearly isn't).

and even if you could, you can't explain how added randomness allows for added freedom.

I have tried many times. Every time I do, you set up a strawman and say that I have no evidence. Then I get annoyed and say that randomness only leaves the possibility for free will. Then you wait a few days and we start the whole thing over again.

Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL. Randomness is random. Freedom is not randomness. Will is not randomness.

You have not shown that a) Randomness is an input into neural activity (which it cannot be unless the QM prediction for neuron behaviour differs significantly from the Classical prediction, which you just agreed it did not); nor b) That by adding randomness (by any mechanism) you introduce freedom to the process.

If you are annoyed by people saying you have no evidence, then the solution is to provide some evidence.

Right now, your entire argument seems to be that as you disagree with me, I should grow up and learn to admit that I am wrong. Well I am happy to admit that I am wrong; but only if you demonstrate that I am. I am not just going to agree that I am wrong because you really truly believe that you are right. You need to provide a logically sound and valid argument, plus appropriate evidence for the factuality of the premises.

If you are arguing for the importance of differences between QM and Classical Mechanics in situations where classical mechanics provides an adequate substitute, then what you are arguing for is irrelevant.
If you are arguing that Classical Mechanics is inadequate to explain neuron behaviour, then show evidence that this is the case; and show how the attributes of the system that are not adequately explained by Classical Mechanics can lead to freedom of will.

 

[ryan]

Thereby rendering QM an irrelevant sidebar to the debate - like quibbling about the spericity of the earth when shown a two dimensional map of your home town, you are arguing for a distinction without a difference. Either QM is relevant to the process of decision making, or it is needless detail that is not relevant to the process of decision making. You seem to agree that the evidence indicates that it is the latter, while wanting to hold on to the former as an excuse for belief in free will. (although it is far from clear how QM would enable free will even if it were relevant, which it clearly isn't).

If you are talking about quantum effects that are adequately described in classical terms, then that can only lead to the exact same conclusions that you could have reached without reference to QM at all.

Particles are not restricted, except for some boundaries. Basically they can "do" anything they "want" (if they can actually want). Obviously there is going to be much conflict with other "free" particles, and even their boundaries can guide them a little bit. Ultimately, it would seem that their freedoms, in very large numbers, eventually appear to be CM.

With QM any possible thing can happen. There is an infinite number things that can happen within certain boundaries. With CM, only one thing can happen, and don't try to misconstrue those words into a side argument.

But there is an elephant in the room that I have to acknowledge. What we see is a result of particles having an almost impossible way of behaving given their infinite freedoms and random fluctuations. Scientists are trying to explain this unsettling improbability. Many explanations have been proposed. They typically deal with ways that we can have this improbability by introducing more time; and/or space; and/or universes; and/or recurrences; and/or dimensions; etc. Some theories imply determinism, and some don't. Either way, CM is far from the end of the story regarding free will.

Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL. Randomness is random. Freedom is not randomness. Will is not randomness.

Oh Lord!

It wouldn't be random to the entity doing the action, but it would be random to all other observers/entities. Think of it as relative randomness.

If your dog had free will, wouldn't his/her behavior appear to be random?

 

[bilby]

If you are talking about quantum effects that are adequately described in classical terms, then that can only lead to the exact same conclusions that you could have reached without reference to QM at all.

Particles are not restricted, except for some boundaries.

Could you be a little less precise?

Basically they can "do" anything they "want" (if they can actually want).

They can't. Figures of speech are fine, but need appropriate caution.

Obviously there is going to be much conflict with other "free" particles, and even their boundaries can guide them a little bit. Ultimately, it would seem that their freedoms, in very large numbers, eventually appear to be CM.

All of which is a long winded way of agreeing with me.

With QM any possible thing can happen. There is an infinite number things that can happen within certain boundaries. With CM, only one thing can happen,

Indeed. And CM is the direct result of QM. So we can see that with QM anything is possible witin constraints; and that those constraints become stricter and stricter as we increase the scale and scope of what we are interested in; until only one thing can happen - the thing CM predicts. So at sufficiently large scales - for example the millions of molecules each containing hundreds of atoms that determine whether or no a neuron fires - CM is a sufficient and complete descriptor of events, and we can simplify matters by simply ignoring QM altogether, while still getting the right answers.

and don't try to misconstrue those words into a side argument.

I never try to misconstrue anything.

But there is an elephant in the room that I have to acknowledge. What we see is a result of particles having an almost impossible way of behaving given their infinite freedoms.

I cannot parse this sentence. Could you try to clarify what you mean here?

Scientists are trying to explain this unsettling improbability. Many explanations have been proposed. They typically deal with ways that we can have this improbability by introducing more time; and/or space; and/or universes; and/or recurrences; and/or dimensions; etc. Some theories imply determinism, and some don't. Either way, CM is far from the end of the story regarding free will.

You have lost me completely.

What we see is a result of particles behaving deterministically when considered en masse, due to the probabilities of them behaving in ways not predicted by CM tending to zero. Bizarre breaches of CM are technically possible, but so improbable that they are unlikely to happen once in the entire life of the universe. Certainly breaches of CM don't happen regularly within a single human lifetime, in a single human brain. Anything is possible; but only one thing is sufficiently probable to be worthy of consideration.

I am not at all sure that this is what you are trying to say here. But if it isn't, it probably should be.

Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL. Randomness is random. Freedom is not randomness. Will is not randomness.

Oh Lord!

It's OK, you can simply address me as 'Sir', or even 'bilby' - there is no need for formality.

It wouldn't be random to the entity doing the action, but it would be random to all other observers/entities. Think of it as relative randomness.

If your dog had free will, wouldn't his/her behavior appear to be random?

No. No it would not.

Indeed this question leaves me wondering what you think 'random' even means.

I can guess what my dog will do in a given situation; but I can't be 100% sure - because his behaviour is determined by a huge number of inputs, and I do not have access to a complete knowledge of those inputs. His behaviour is partly predictable, and partly unpredictable. Something which can easily be explained by chaos theory, without any recourse to randomness, quantum mechanics or the concept of 'free will'.

If my dog's behaviour appeared to be random, I would take that not as an indication of free will, but of psychosis. A person whose behaviour is random will find himself in a secure psychiatric facility in short order. A dog would (if he could not be successfully treated) be put down.

 

[ryan]

Obviously there is going to be much conflict with other "free" particles, and even their boundaries can guide them a little bit. Ultimately, it would seem that their freedoms, in very large numbers, eventually appear to be CM.

All of which is a long winded way of agreeing with me.

No I am not agreeing with you. The particles may be free, yet they will conflict with others making it seem like they didn't have freedom.

With QM any possible thing can happen. There is an infinite number things that can happen within certain boundaries. With CM, only one thing can happen,

Indeed. And CM is the direct result of QM. So we can see that with QM anything is possible witin constraints; and that those constraints become stricter and stricter as we increase the scale and scope of what we are interested in; until only one thing can happen - the thing CM predicts. So at sufficiently large scales - for example the millions of molecules each containing hundreds of atoms that determine whether or no a neuron fires - CM is a sufficient and complete descriptor of events, and we can simplify matters by simply ignoring QM altogether, while still getting the right answers.

We don't know this yet.

But there is an elephant in the room that I have to acknowledge. What we see is a result of particles having an almost impossible way of behaving given their infinite freedoms. Scientists are trying to explain this unsettling improbability. Many explanations have been proposed. They typically deal with ways that we can have this improbability by introducing more time; and/or space; and/or universes; and/or recurrences; and/or dimensions; etc. Some theories imply determinism, and some don't. Either way, CM is far from the end of the story regarding free will.

You have lost me completely.

Please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain . And if you are interested, watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U .

Basically, we and CM (certain constants) should not exist if the universe is truly from quantum fluctuations. There is a big problem in cosmology.

Certainly breaches of CM don't happen regularly within a single human lifetime, in a single human brain. Anything is possible; but only one thing is sufficiently probable to be worthy of consideration.

Again, you don't know this; nobody knows this.

It wouldn't be random to the entity doing the action, but it would be random to all other observers/entities. Think of it as relative randomness.

If your dog had free will, wouldn't his/her behavior appear to be random?

No. No it would not.

Soooo then are you saying that you could predict what a dog with free will would do? How???

Indeed this question leaves me wondering what you think 'random' even means.

I can guess what my dog will do in a given situation; but I can't be 100% sure - because his behaviour is determined by a huge number of inputs, and I do not have access to a complete knowledge of those inputs. His behaviour is partly predictable, and partly unpredictable.

In your classical universe, only your own intelligence would limit you from predicting everything he would do. But even superior intellect would not help if your dog was a function of quantum randomness.

Something which can easily be explained by chaos theory, without any recourse to randomness, quantum mechanics or the concept of 'free will'.

If my dog's behaviour appeared to be random, I would take that not as an indication of free will, but of psychosis. A person whose behaviour is random will find himself in a secure psychiatric facility in short order. A dog would (if he could not be successfully treated) be put down.

If you really were the Lord, then you would know for sure that you're full of it.

 

[Juma]

In your classical universe, only your own intelligence would limit you from predicting everything he would do. But even superior intellect would not help if your dog was a function of quantum randomness.
.

What you dont get is that random choices is not free will because it is not a coherent will at all.

 

[bilby]

All of which is a long winded way of agreeing with me.

No I am not agreeing with you. The particles may be free, yet they will conflict with others making it seem like they didn't have freedom.

With QM any possible thing can happen. There is an infinite number things that can happen within certain boundaries. With CM, only one thing can happen,

Indeed. And CM is the direct result of QM. So we can see that with QM anything is possible witin constraints; and that those constraints become stricter and stricter as we increase the scale and scope of what we are interested in; until only one thing can happen - the thing CM predicts. So at sufficiently large scales - for example the millions of molecules each containing hundreds of atoms that determine whether or no a neuron fires - CM is a sufficient and complete descriptor of events, and we can simplify matters by simply ignoring QM altogether, while still getting the right answers.

We don't know this yet.

YOU might not.

But there is an elephant in the room that I have to acknowledge. What we see is a result of particles having an almost impossible way of behaving given their infinite freedoms. Scientists are trying to explain this unsettling improbability. Many explanations have been proposed. They typically deal with ways that we can have this improbability by introducing more time; and/or space; and/or universes; and/or recurrences; and/or dimensions; etc. Some theories imply determinism, and some don't. Either way, CM is far from the end of the story regarding free will.

You have lost me completely.

Please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain . And if you are interested, watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U .

You misunderstand; I don't understand what the sentence "What we see is a result of particles having an almost impossible way of behaving given their infinite freedoms." could possibly mean; and so everything you based on that is opaque.

What we see is the result of particles behaving the way particles are predicted to behave in QM; which results in our seeing macroscopic systems behaving as they are predicted to behave by CM. Nothing we observe is impossible or "almost impossible". The infinite freedoms of single particles in QM boil down to highly predictable behaviours when we consider macroscopic collections of quantum particles - the probability of all non CM predicted results adds up to a sufficiently small number that it simply won't happen in the small amount of space and time contained in a human lifespan, so we can ignore such effects when discussing human behaviour.

I know what a Boltzmann Brain is (and that it isn't relevant to our discussion; we are talking about human brains on earth, not hypothetical quantum fluctuation effects in an infinite space-time) and I have no intention of watching a video of anything - if you can't express it in written form, then you don't understand it well enough for me to care.

Basically, we and CM (certain constants) should not exist if the universe is truly from quantum fluctuations. There is a big problem in cosmology.

This is so far off topic that it is (literally) in a different universe.

Certainly breaches of CM don't happen regularly within a single human lifetime, in a single human brain. Anything is possible; but only one thing is sufficiently probable to be worthy of consideration.

Again, you don't know this; nobody knows this.

Yes, I do know this. If CM was regularly wrong at macro scales, we would have noticed. People relied on CM for detailed calculations in real world applications for centuries, and only when we started looking at subatomic effects did it stop being an excellent predictor of every observation in the real world.

You can't just ignore experimental and observational evidence. (Well, clearly you CAN, but you SHOULDN'T).

It wouldn't be random to the entity doing the action, but it would be random to all other observers/entities. Think of it as relative randomness.

If your dog had free will, wouldn't his/her behavior appear to be random?

No. No it would not.

Soooo then are you saying that you could predict what a dog with free will would do? How???

No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will. In theory, if you knew every detail of the system, you could make a definite prediction; but the ability to do this in practice is not there, even before we consider quantum effects. A dog is too complex to model accurately without simply building an identical dog - which is then not a model, but a duplicate.

Indeed this question leaves me wondering what you think 'random' even means.

I can guess what my dog will do in a given situation; but I can't be 100% sure - because his behaviour is determined by a huge number of inputs, and I do not have access to a complete knowledge of those inputs. His behaviour is partly predictable, and partly unpredictable.

In your classical universe, only your own intelligence would limit you from predicting everything he would do. But even superior intellect would not help if your dog was a function of quantum randomness.

Something which can easily be explained by chaos theory, without any recourse to randomness, quantum mechanics or the concept of 'free will'.

If my dog's behaviour appeared to be random, I would take that not as an indication of free will, but of psychosis. A person whose behaviour is random will find himself in a secure psychiatric facility in short order. A dog would (if he could not be successfully treated) be put down.

If you really were the Lord, then you would know for sure that you're full of it.

I know one of us is; It just isn't at all clear that it is me.

 

[DBT]

''The particles may be free''

Quantum wave function is probabilistic, which is not 'free' - nor is this a choice it makes.

Random particle behaviour is random, which doesn't mean that it can do what it pleases.

 

[ryan]

What we see is the result of particles behaving the way particles are predicted to behave in QM; which results in our seeing macroscopic systems behaving as they are predicted to behave by CM. Nothing we observe is impossible or "almost impossible". The infinite freedoms of single particles in QM boil down to highly predictable behaviours when we consider macroscopic collections of quantum particles - the probability of all non CM predicted results adds up to a sufficiently small number that it simply won't happen in the small amount of space and time contained in a human lifespan, so we can ignore such effects when discussing human behaviour.

I know what a Boltzmann Brain is (and that it isn't relevant to our discussion; we are talking about human brains on earth, not hypothetical quantum fluctuation effects in an infinite space-time) and I have no intention of watching a video of anything - if you can't express it in written form, then you don't understand it well enough for me to care.

I tried to explain it below this rambling about me not trying to explain it to you.

Let's try this again:

Basically, we and CM (certain constants) should not exist if the universe is truly from quantum fluctuations. There is a big problem in cosmology.

Look into what a Boltzmann brain actually is and why it is relevant to our discussion.

Certainly breaches of CM don't happen regularly within a single human lifetime, in a single human brain. Anything is possible; but only one thing is sufficiently probable to be worthy of consideration.

CM is the breach. Why is it so improbable that we exist: refer to "Boltzmann's brain".

Yes, I do know this. If CM was regularly wrong at macro scales, we would have noticed. People relied on CM for detailed calculations in real world applications for centuries, and only when we started looking at subatomic effects did it stop being an excellent predictor of every observation in the real world.

Okay bilby, why don't you spew these claims to the University of Illinois (and many more institutions doing research on quantum biology) so that they can stop wasting money on finding biological processes in the human eye,

In collaboration with E. Landau and J. Navarro at University of Texas Medical Branch, the Resource has applied a combined ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach to examine the ground and excited state of retinal in bacteriorhodopsin (bR) and sensory rhodopsin II (sRII).

from http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/spectral_tuning/

Face it; you are out of control with you positive claims.

No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will. In theory, if you knew every detail of the system, you could make a definite prediction; but the ability to do this in practice is not there, even before we consider quantum effects. A dog is too complex to model accurately without simply building an identical dog - which is then not a model, but a duplicate.

Okay, but that doesn't explain your quote here, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL.".

 

[DBT]

No, they're not aspects of the same issue. Deriving meaning from usage is an entirely separate activity from determining the truth/accuracy of what's said.

The two are related because meaning doesn't come from nothing more than usage...it's also object related, the word 'moon' represents an actual object, for example. Words and word usage is not just plucked out of a vacuum.

And you've been pushing at an open door. Nothing I've posted has claimed or suggested that meaning implies anything about truth/accuracy of the concepts expressed.

If that's the case, what is your point? What are you arguing for? Nothing I have said denies common usage of the term free will. I question accuracy and relevance.

So again, what is your complaint?

No I don't. This strawman representation of what I've been saying is a complete figment of your imagination. If you can cite anything I've posted in which I claim or imply that establishing meaning entails anything with regard to the truth/accuracy of the "object of reference" I'll willingly issue an unreserved apology.

Well it's odd that you've put this much energy and effort to argue against something that you don't disagree with. Considering I have stated the distinction between the word as a symbol (including common usage) and its reference to an object. That the word or term may not or does not adequately describe the object it represents as a symbol for communication.

Then you have made remarks along these lines:

''Our only disagreement is over the use of the word 'free' to describe 'will'. You say there is no circumstance in which the 'will' can ever be described as free. I disagree (I claim there are meanings of the word 'free' which don't entail freedom from deterministic causes).

This is a dispute about the meaning of the word 'free'

-----which suggests that one can indeed apply the word 'free' to 'will' under some circumstances and thereby legitimately claim an instance of 'free will' - one of your examples being freedom from coercion.

When put together, you appear to be making a case for 'free will' through semantics, ie, an absence of coercion allowing freedom of will in that instance, hence 'free will'

That is the impression you give.

If, as seems indisputably the case, there is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common use, then it would seem to follow that the existential status of 'free will' will depend on which version we're talking about.

Do you agree so far?

There it is again, free will being justified through semantics and context. No I don't agree, for the reasons I have already outlined in numerous posts.

I do agree with your remark in post #706;

''What the theory would not tell you is whether the concept of god in that community refers to something that has any real existence.''

Which of course applies to the concept of 'free will' in this instance.

 

[ryan]

''The particles may be free''

Quantum wave function is probabilistic, which is not 'free' - nor is this a choice it makes.

A particle can be in any area where the probability is greater than 0. It is free to be in any one of an infinite number of positions within any space where there is at least some probability.

 

[bilby]

I tried to explain it below this rambling about me not trying to explain it to you.

Let's try this again:

Basically, we and CM (certain constants) should not exist if the universe is truly from quantum fluctuations. There is a big problem in cosmology.

Look into what a Boltzmann brain actually is and why it is relevant to our discussion.

I know what a Boltzmann brain is; and I know it is not relevant to our discussion. If you think it is, then please explain why you think that.

Certainly breaches of CM don't happen regularly within a single human lifetime, in a single human brain. Anything is possible; but only one thing is sufficiently probable to be worthy of consideration.

CM is the breach. Why is it so improbable that we exist: refer to "Boltzmann's brain".

Only if you subscribe to an hypothesis of the origins of the universe that is far from mainstream or convincing. If you want to start from the assumption that this hypothesis is correct, then you have a LOT of groundwork to do, that you have simply skipped. No wonder I don't have a clue what you are on about when you make un-stated and controversial assumptions.

Yes, I do know this. If CM was regularly wrong at macro scales, we would have noticed. People relied on CM for detailed calculations in real world applications for centuries, and only when we started looking at subatomic effects did it stop being an excellent predictor of every observation in the real world.

Okay bilby, why don't you spew these claims to the University of Illinois (and many more institutions doing research on quantum biology) so that they can stop wasting money on finding biological processes in the human eye,

In collaboration with E. Landau and J. Navarro at University of Texas Medical Branch, the Resource has applied a combined ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach to examine the ground and excited state of retinal in bacteriorhodopsin (bR) and sensory rhodopsin II (sRII).

from http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/spectral_tuning/

Face it; you are out of control with you positive claims.

People don't use retinal proteins to think with. You are still not grasping the importance of scale. In fact, you don't seem to have a coherent idea about any of this shit. I am not interested in arguing with your misapprehensions of the significance of unrelated research by people who have forgotten more than you are ever likely to learn.

No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will. In theory, if you knew every detail of the system, you could make a definite prediction; but the ability to do this in practice is not there, even before we consider quantum effects. A dog is too complex to model accurately without simply building an identical dog - which is then not a model, but a duplicate.

Okay, but that doesn't explain your quote here, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL.".

What explanation do you need? It's a statement of fact. Randomness and free will are not related concepts. Will is not random, whether or not it is free (unless you are psychotic).

 

[The AntiChris]

If, as seems indisputably the case, there is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common use, then it would seem to follow that the existential status of 'free will' will depend on which version we're talking about.

Do you agree so far?

There it is again, free will being justified through semantics and context.

Yes, this does this does seem to me to be the only way of proceeding if we're going to ensure that the concepts we're discussing relate to the real world. Once you dissociate the subject of discussion from actual usage, you're doing philosophy which has no relevance to the real world.

I do agree with your remark in post #706;

''What the theory would not tell you is whether the concept of god in that community refers to something that has any real existence.''

Which of course applies to the concept of 'free will' in this instance.

Of course, and I'm at a total loss as to how you think this might be at all contradicted by anything I've posted since.

 

[ryan]

Look into what a Boltzmann brain actually is and why it is relevant to our discussion.

I know what a Boltzmann brain is; and I know it is not relevant to our discussion. If you think it is, then please explain why you think that.

I have tried to explain to you how it's relevant in the last 2 posts to you.

CM is the breach. Why is it so improbable that we exist: refer to "Boltzmann's brain".

Only if you subscribe to an hypothesis of the origins of the universe that is far from mainstream or convincing.

A universe beginning from quantum fluctuations is not mainstream?! It has been mainstream for decades and still is today.

Okay bilby, why don't you spew these claims to the University of Illinois (and many more institutions doing research on quantum biology) so that they can stop wasting money on finding biological processes in the human eye,

In collaboration with E. Landau and J. Navarro at University of Texas Medical Branch, the Resource has applied a combined ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach to examine the ground and excited state of retinal in bacteriorhodopsin (bR) and sensory rhodopsin II (sRII).

from http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/spectral_tuning/

Face it; you are out of control with you positive claims.

People don't use retinal proteins to think with.

Look at what I was responding to. Also, do you not think that quantum biological effects can affect your thinking? Obviously they can.

No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will. In theory, if you knew every detail of the system, you could make a definite prediction; but the ability to do this in practice is not there, even before we consider quantum effects. A dog is too complex to model accurately without simply building an identical dog - which is then not a model, but a duplicate.

Okay, but that doesn't explain your quote here, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL.".

What explanation do you need? It's a statement of fact. Randomness and free will are not related concepts. Will is not random, whether or not it is free (unless you are psychotic).

Do you not see that you are tripping up all over the place. You said, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL." Then you said, "No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will."

So you know that a dog with free will wouldn't exhibit random behavior, but you are also saying that it is not possible to say what a dog would do with free will. I don't think you have thought this through.

 

[bilby]

I know what a Boltzmann brain is; and I know it is not relevant to our discussion. If you think it is, then please explain why you think that.

I have tried to explain to you how it's relevant in the last 2 posts to you.

CM is the breach. Why is it so improbable that we exist: refer to "Boltzmann's brain".

Only if you subscribe to an hypothesis of the origins of the universe that is far from mainstream or convincing.

A universe beginning from quantum fluctuations is not mainstream?! It has been mainstream for decades and still is today.

Okay bilby, why don't you spew these claims to the University of Illinois (and many more institutions doing research on quantum biology) so that they can stop wasting money on finding biological processes in the human eye,

In collaboration with E. Landau and J. Navarro at University of Texas Medical Branch, the Resource has applied a combined ab initio quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach to examine the ground and excited state of retinal in bacteriorhodopsin (bR) and sensory rhodopsin II (sRII).

from http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/spectral_tuning/

Face it; you are out of control with you positive claims.

People don't use retinal proteins to think with.

Look at what I was responding to. Also, do you not think that quantum biological effects can affect your thinking? Obviously they can.

No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will. In theory, if you knew every detail of the system, you could make a definite prediction; but the ability to do this in practice is not there, even before we consider quantum effects. A dog is too complex to model accurately without simply building an identical dog - which is then not a model, but a duplicate.

Okay, but that doesn't explain your quote here, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL.".

What explanation do you need? It's a statement of fact. Randomness and free will are not related concepts. Will is not random, whether or not it is free (unless you are psychotic).

Do you not see that you are tripping up all over the place. You said, "Randomness DOES NOT LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FREE WILL." Then you said, "No, I am saying that it is not possible in practice to say what a dog will do whether or not it has free will."

So you know that a dog with free will wouldn't exhibit random behavior, but you are also saying that it is not possible to say what a dog would do with free will. I don't think you have thought this through.

Well clearly one of us hasn't.

I will leave you to your religion.

 

[ryan]

Now that's how it's done!

Who's next?

 

[DBT]

There it is again, free will being justified through semantics and context.

Yes, this does this does seem to me to be the only way of proceeding if we're going to ensure that the concepts we're discussing relate to the real world. Once you dissociate the subject of discussion from actual usage, you're doing philosophy which has no relevance to the real world.

This appears to be where the problem lies. One step at a time. Are you saying that common usage, in this instance 'free will' in relation to an absence of coercion, may be proven inaccurate by evidence from the ''real world?"

Is that right?

Of course, and I'm at a total loss as to how you think this might be at all contradicted by anything I've posted since.

I think that may depend on your explanation to my question.

 

[DBT]

Now that's how it's done!

Who's next?

Why not try to give a concise description of 'free will' - decision making, behaviour, etc - in relation to your Quantum freedom claim... put some meat on the dry brittle bones of your proposal, so to speak.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

Now that's how it's done!

Who's next?

So you are proud of being a jerk and a fool?