In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[Kharakov]

Ah, so you can feel how your brain works? Dont think so.. Think again.

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

They know that their sense of certainty is false, so raising the doubt in it makes them doubt that it is false, which makes them more certain.

Are you some sort of con artist?

 

[Juma]

Ah, so you can feel how your brain works? Dont think so.. Think again.

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

Stop bullshitting. You are arguing a hypotetical mechanism for something that doesnt exist.

If it is shown that neurond uses QM mechanism that is fine but we are definitely not there.

 

[DBT]

Cogs can rotate quite freely on their shafts...there's the word 'free' - the cog must have 'free will' - after all, it is composed of quantum particles just like you and me, and quantum particles are, in your words, 'free.' Proven: cogs have free will.

We want things; we don't know if cogs want things.

What you want is a result of brain condition and state/activity, which you yourself are, as an aware identity comprising a collection of wants, needs and fears, a being represented in conscious form (when conscious activity is being generated.

"Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness"

from http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"A model developed by Beck and Eccles applies concrete quantum mechanical features to describe details of the process of exocytosis. Their model proposes that quantum processes are relevant for exocytosis and, moreover, are tightly related to states of consciousness."

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2

Quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' alone does not account for consciousness. First problem being, this is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Secondly, the theory does not adequately describe consciousness, yet alone account for it with QViM.

The only examples of conscious behaviour that we have is to be found the presence of macro scale brains and their electrochemical information processing activity, their output being determined by neural architecture and chemistry. Of course, quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' may indeed play a role in brain structure and function, but this still cannot account for human/animal behaviour patterns, which are based on neural architecture regardless of the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules in all brains, reptile mammal, insect.....so this doesn't help your case. It's just clutching at straws.

 

[DBT]

Sure, we agreed on this a while back.

Good.

So having agreed that there is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common use, it follows logically that an argument against one version of 'free will' may not necessarily refute all versions (other arguments may well do the job though).
In other words, each version (usage/meaning) of 'free will' require its own specific refutation.

Do you agree?

Sure, we can deal with each one in turn, if you like.

I'd argue that all references to human decision making and behaviour should relate to the sole source of human decision making and behaviour: the presence, condition and state of brain. Without that, there is no agency.

I'm pretty sure we don't agree.

It's clear to me that we have quite different interpretations of what is entailed by the principle of 'usage is meaning'. I'm just trying to find out precisely the root of the problem I identified in my first response to you in this thread (post #618).

We appear to agree on the fundamentals - that common references/common usage or what people generally believe when they use the words defines meaning.

And possibly, that we need independent evidence to verify the existence of god, angels, hobgoblins, space aliens, free will or whatever people refer to when they use the words, and through common usage, establish common meaning.

Our point of contention lies in relation to your suggestion that there are indeed several versions of free will, because common usage employes the term in several different contexts.

Of course there are several definition and versions of the concept of 'free will' - but my contention is that all versions must necessarily relate to the sole source of 'will' - and this relates to your contention (which we appear to agree), that we need independent evidence to verify the existence of the things being referred to by common usage and meaning.

So the next step becomes: what exactly does each common reference and common meaning of 'free will' refer to, or represent?

 

[The AntiChris]

Good.

So having agreed that there is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common use, it follows logically that an argument against one version of 'free will' may not necessarily refute all versions (other arguments may well do the job though).
In other words, each version (usage/meaning) of 'free will' require its own specific refutation.

Do you agree?

Sure, we can deal with each one in turn, if you like.

Good.

I'd argue that all references to human decision making and behaviour should relate to the sole source of human decision making and behaviour: the presence, condition and state of brain. Without that, there is no agency.

Of course there are several definition and versions of the concept of 'free will' - but my contention is that all versions must necessarily relate to the sole source of 'will'

I'm struggling with comments like these.

On the one hand you accept that meaning is derived from usage, but on the other you seem to be saying here that any version (of usage/meaning) must conform to your notion of what the term free will ought to refer to. On the face of it this seems to be a contradiction. (there's no intention here to misrepresent you - I'm just trying to understand what you're saying)

Can you explain?

 

[ryan]

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

Stop bullshitting. You are arguing a hypotetical mechanism for something that doesnt exist.

If it is shown that neurond uses QM mechanism that is fine but we are definitely not there.

I have posted links to show that there is evidence and very credible schools doing research on it. Quantum mechanisms of the consciousness should be no surprise because everything is QM. It is only a surprise that something like CM can exist.

Surely one shouldn't be certain that a wooden building will not have some wooden properties somewhere within it.

 

[Juma]

I have posted links to show that there is evidence and very credible schools doing research on it..

For fucks sake: you have shown a proposed hypotesis!. And most important: you have shown no reason to believe that this !hypotesis! has anything to do with "free will".

 

[ryan]

We want things; we don't know if cogs want things.

What you want is a result of brain condition and state/activity, which you yourself are, as an aware identity comprising a collection of wants, needs and fears, a being represented in conscious form (when conscious activity is being generated.

"Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness"

from http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"A model developed by Beck and Eccles applies concrete quantum mechanical features to describe details of the process of exocytosis. Their model proposes that quantum processes are relevant for exocytosis and, moreover, are tightly related to states of consciousness."

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2

Quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' alone does not account for consciousness. First problem being, this is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Secondly, the theory does not adequately describe consciousness, yet alone account for it with QViM.

The only examples of conscious behaviour that we have is to be found the presence of macro scale brains and their electrochemical information processing activity, their output being determined by neural architecture and chemistry. Of course, quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' may indeed play a role in brain structure and function, but this still cannot account for human/animal behaviour patterns, which are based on neural architecture regardless of the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules in all brains, reptile mammal, insect.....so this doesn't help your case. It's just clutching at straws.

My argument was only about having some free will. It was never about having total control using only QM. Obviously I know that we are highly predictable by way of classical mechanics.

 

[ryan]

I have posted links to show that there is evidence and very credible schools doing research on it..

For fucks sake: you have shown a proposed hypotesis!. And most important: you have shown no reason to believe that this !hypotesis! has anything to do with "free will".

There is a theory too called, "orchestrated objective reduction" that the quantum vibrations support.

Look through this thread. I have explained everything.

 

[Juma]

For fucks sake: you have shown a proposed hypotesis!. And most important: you have shown no reason to believe that this !hypotesis! has anything to do with "free will".

There is a theory too called, "orchestrated objective reduction" that the quantum vibrations support.

Look through this thread. I have explained everything.

You are delusional. You have not explained anything.
First you have not explained how "free will" can be observed.

 

[DBT]

Sure, we can deal with each one in turn, if you like.

Good.

I'd argue that all references to human decision making and behaviour should relate to the sole source of human decision making and behaviour: the presence, condition and state of brain. Without that, there is no agency.

Of course there are several definition and versions of the concept of 'free will' - but my contention is that all versions must necessarily relate to the sole source of 'will'

I'm struggling with comments like these.

On the one hand you accept that meaning is derived from usage, but on the other you seem to be saying here that any version (of usage/meaning) must conform to your notion of what the term free will ought to refer to. On the face of it this seems to be a contradiction. (there's no intention here to misrepresent you - I'm just trying to understand what you're saying)

Can you explain?

Again, as I've said, common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will' or your version of 'free will,' but precisely what it refers to when the reference is being made, in the instance it is made.

Hence someone may say 'he acted of his own free will' when an action was not coerced. Or someone may make a remark regarding 'her free will' in reference to 'what she wanted to do' - conscious decisions/options taken, etc, etc, etc.

All references ultimately relating to agency.

If you have an example of your own in mind, something you'd like to discuss, perhaps something that does not relate to what I just said, post it and we can discuss it.

 

[DBT]

What you want is a result of brain condition and state/activity, which you yourself are, as an aware identity comprising a collection of wants, needs and fears, a being represented in conscious form (when conscious activity is being generated.

"Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness"

from http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"A model developed by Beck and Eccles applies concrete quantum mechanical features to describe details of the process of exocytosis. Their model proposes that quantum processes are relevant for exocytosis and, moreover, are tightly related to states of consciousness."

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2

Quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' alone does not account for consciousness. First problem being, this is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Secondly, the theory does not adequately describe consciousness, yet alone account for it with QViM.

The only examples of conscious behaviour that we have is to be found the presence of macro scale brains and their electrochemical information processing activity, their output being determined by neural architecture and chemistry. Of course, quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' may indeed play a role in brain structure and function, but this still cannot account for human/animal behaviour patterns, which are based on neural architecture regardless of the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules in all brains, reptile mammal, insect.....so this doesn't help your case. It's just clutching at straws.

My argument was only about having some free will. It was never about having total control using only QM. Obviously I know that we are highly predictable by way of classical mechanics.

No real argument for 'some free will' has been shown, because quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' alone does not account for consciousness, nor does randomness allow rational decision making. Rational decision making being the evolved function of a brain, behaviour and the types of decisions to be made being related to overall architecture of a brain and not quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' - which may be present in all brains.

 

[The AntiChris]

Good.

I'd argue that all references to human decision making and behaviour should relate to the sole source of human decision making and behaviour: the presence, condition and state of brain. Without that, there is no agency.

Of course there are several definition and versions of the concept of 'free will' - but my contention is that all versions must necessarily relate to the sole source of 'will'

I'm struggling with comments like these.

On the one hand you accept that meaning is derived from usage, but on the other you seem to be saying here that any version (of usage/meaning) must conform to your notion of what the term free will ought to refer to. On the face of it this seems to be a contradiction. (there's no intention here to misrepresent you - I'm just trying to understand what you're saying)

Can you explain?

Again, as I've said, common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'....

This is confusing.

We've agreed (I thought) that the meaning of the term 'free will' is derived (as with all words) from common usage. You appear to be saying here that the meaning you attribute to the term 'free will' is your own private meaning (i'e. it's not derived from common usage).

You're perfectly at liberty to use any meaning you like but if you want to communicate effectively you need to make it clear that you're using your own person version and not one that is in common use.

But most importantly, the arguments you use to refute your own version won't necessarily be persuasive against other versions. In other words repeating at every opportunity that will can't be free because it's deterministic is pointless.

 

[ryan]

There is a theory too called, "orchestrated objective reduction" that the quantum vibrations support.

Look through this thread. I have explained everything.

You are delusional. You have not explained anything.
First you have not explained how "free will" can be observed.

The way we can test free will is by having a subject make a choice. Any quantum effect in the process in making the decision that leaves any number of other possible outcomes is, in my opinion, evidence of free will.

 

[ryan]

No real argument for 'some free will' has been shown, because quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' alone does not account for consciousness, nor does randomness allow rational decision making.

What if those vibrations have an effect on our choices; how would we know that that isn't a physical manifestation of our freedom to choose something?

You have to explain why it's not free will. I don't have to explain why it must be free will because my position is agnostic.

Rational decision making being the evolved function of a brain, behaviour and the types of decisions to be made being related to overall architecture of a brain and not quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' - which may be present in all brains.

There is much leeway in evolved decision making. Choosing between eating at Wendy's or the McDonald's beside it is not going to come from an evolved instinct.

 

[DBT]

Good.

I'd argue that all references to human decision making and behaviour should relate to the sole source of human decision making and behaviour: the presence, condition and state of brain. Without that, there is no agency.

Of course there are several definition and versions of the concept of 'free will' - but my contention is that all versions must necessarily relate to the sole source of 'will'

I'm struggling with comments like these.

On the one hand you accept that meaning is derived from usage, but on the other you seem to be saying here that any version (of usage/meaning) must conform to your notion of what the term free will ought to refer to. On the face of it this seems to be a contradiction. (there's no intention here to misrepresent you - I'm just trying to understand what you're saying)

Can you explain?

Again, as I've said, common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'....

This is confusing.

It shouldn't be confusing. There is no reason for it to be confusing. This is quite simple and straightforward.

The term 'free will' in common usage refers precisely to what it refers to when the reference is being made, in the instance it is made.
And I even gave examples of common usage, common references and consequently common meanings in the context in which the term is commonly used...I could list these again but you'd probably complain about me repeating the same thing in every post....yet you fail to address what I say, regardless.

We've agreed (I thought) that the meaning of the term 'free will' is derived (as with all words) from common usage. You appear to be saying here that the meaning you attribute to the term 'free will' is your own private meaning (i'e. it's not derived from common usage).

No, no I don't say that. I even stated as much. And given examples of common usage and the meanings derived or based on that usage...which has nothing whatsoever to do with my meanings, because I don't have any private meaning, nor do I use any meaning other than common definitions.

Where do you get the idea of 'private meaning' based on anything I have said? Point it out. Let's have a look.

But most importantly, the arguments you use to refute your own version won't necessarily be persuasive against other versions. In other words repeating at every opportunity that will can't be free because it's deterministic is pointless.

What do you think 'free will' is?

What does the term refer to in an instance of what you believe to be an example of free will?

Also, what is 'will and what is the source of 'will?' How does 'will' relate to 'free will?'

Can you give an example of free will in relation to semantic references, decisions or whatever, so that we can have a look at your example?

 

[DBT]

What if those vibrations have an effect on our choices; how would we know that that isn't a physical manifestation of our freedom to choose something?

You have to explain why it's not free will. I don't have to explain why it must be free will because my position is agnostic.

I've explained why it's not free will. Random events/effects do not produce anything other than random events/effects or chance patterns. This is not coherent decision making. Coherent decision making requires structured mechanisms, neural network that process information, that generate response based on information input and memory function....which is not random, or 'free will'

There is much leeway in evolved decision making. Choosing between eating at Wendy's or the McDonald's beside it is not going to come from an evolved instinct.

This is based on inputs and memory function, the experience of past pleasures and past discomforts, aversions and pains. Given a choice between a chocolate or vanilla ice cream....there is no choice, I take chocolate or nothing at all, certainly not vanilla, not if it was given to me.

And you keep ignoring memory function, without which consciousness, recognition (being woven into consciousness) thought and decision making completely breaks down, regardless of the presence of quantum vibrations in microtubules (presumably being an aspect of all brains), or your quantum 'freedom'

 

[ryan]

I've explained why it's not free will. Random events/effects do not produce anything other than random events/effects or chance patterns.

If I did have free will, would you be able to predict what I would will, or would it appear to be random?

This is not coherent decision making.

If free will must be ruled by coherency, then how is it free?

Coherent decision making requires structured mechanisms, neural network that process information, that generate response based on information input and memory function....which is not random

You obviously don't know that as I have already shown that people in this field don't even know that. Not only that, but new technologies are now able to show signs that quantum mechanisms do, or at least seem, to play a role in the consciousness. If that's the case, then I would think this would entail at least some randomness.

 

[The AntiChris]

We've agreed (I thought) that the meaning of the term 'free will' is derived (as with all words) from common usage. You appear to be saying here that the meaning you attribute to the term 'free will' is your own private meaning (i'e. it's not derived from common usage).

No, no I don't say that.

The maybe you can explain unambiguously what you do mean.

You said:

common usage does not refer to my version of 'free will'

You also say that you're not using your own private meaning. That seems to me to exhaust all possibilities.

We've established that your version of free will is not derived from common usage and yet you say it's not you own private usage. So, what is the source of your use then?

The term 'free will' in common usage refers precisely to what it refers to when the reference is being made, in the instance it is made.

I don't know how you think this comment explains anything because it doesn't make sense grammatically or logically. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Juma]

You are delusional. You have not explained anything.
First you have not explained how "free will" can be observed.

The way we can test free will is by having a subject make a choice. Any quantum effect in the process in making the decision that leaves any number of other possible outcomes is, in my opinion, evidence of free will.

No. Quantum effects != free will. QM effects is random, not intentional choices.

To observe free will you have show that the agent behaves/works in a specific way that only can be described as free will.