The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

Yes, but the important thing here is how the information is being processed, not its architecture. The paper says,

"... thereby enhancing, and quantum-entangling, postsynaptic neuron excitability and activity.".

This means that quantum entanglement may be influencing neuron activity.

Which does not happen without architecture....and is common to all brains, yet the brains of different species produce behaviour specific to a species, as I've repeatedly pointed out but is still being skirted.

Well of course the architecture is needed. That is something that I have never debated. The idea that the neuron activity can be entangled and put into a superposition of probabilities, does not, as far as I can tell, disallow anything previously known about the architecture.

 

[ryan]

But that is the question ryan is asking as far as I can determine. Is there such a thing as free will (is there such a thing as transparent pigs). It would seem to me the same question as is there such a thing as Susquatch - without actually capturing one, those asserting that there is can only point to evidence and possibility.

However, for "free will" I would start with a specific definition of what exactly is being asserted. just as Susquatch has been well defined so that if one were ever actually seen or captured the question would be settled. With the "free will" argument, even if an instance is identified, the question isn't answered because the detractors will dismiss it because what was being searched for was not defined at the beginning.

Susquatch is just a different species. New species is found every day. Interesting but not even very remarkable.
Free will as ryan define is, on the other hand, a logical contradiction.

It would be like if I and millions of others kept seeing a big hairy looking thing on two legs but were not sure it is actually Sasquatch.

 

[ryan]

What does it even mean to have 'free will' as a human being, or to try and describe our experience as a human being?

Regardless of how we define ourselves, we're the same 'living' object in the universe having an experience that is fundamental to what we are. I don't see a need to get angsty about what we call that.

I don't have any angst about it; I don't even know if I like or dislike the idea. Many people on here seem to have strong negative feeling about it, though. There is a lot of religious connections and frustration regarding this subject, but I will probably never understand why.

 

[ryan]

The really cool thing is that the new math requires memories to be in a superposition (yes I know not necessarily actually, but possibly) as the decision is being made.

 

[Juma]

Susquatch is just a different species. New species is found every day. Interesting but not even very remarkable.
Free will as ryan define is, on the other hand, a logical contradiction.

It would be like if I and millions of others kept seeing a big hairy looking thing on two legs but were not sure it is actually Sasquatch.

And as usual you ignored my post completely. And then came with no support for your faulty conclusion... Why are you so stupid?

 

[Juma]

The really cool thing is that the new math requires memories to be in a superposition (yes I know not necessarily actually, but possibly) as the decision is being made.

What the heck are you talking about? "New nath"? Talking about quantum computers or what? And no, you dont need QM to easily support superposition.

 

[ryan]

It would be like if I and millions of others kept seeing a big hairy looking thing on two legs but were not sure it is actually Sasquatch.

And as usual you ignored my post completely. And then came with no support for your faulty conclusion... Why are you so stupid?

Goooo f yourself you miserable troll.

 

[Juma]

And as usual you ignored my post completely. And then came with no support for your faulty conclusion... Why are you so stupid?

Goooo f yourself you miserable troll.

But, really. Why did you write that post without even touching the point I made? Didnt some part of your brain notice that it actually had a message?
Dont you realize how weird it is to respond to the post you ignore?

 

[ryan]

Goooo f yourself you miserable troll.

But, really. Why did you write that post without even touching the point I made? Didnt some part of your brain notice that it actually had a message?
Dont you realize how weird it is to respond to the post you ignore?

What part of "Goooo f yourself you miserable troll" did you not understand?

 

[DBT]

Which does not happen without architecture....and is common to all brains, yet the brains of different species produce behaviour specific to a species, as I've repeatedly pointed out but is still being skirted.

Well of course the architecture is needed. That is something that I have never debated. The idea that the neuron activity can be entangled and put into a superposition of probabilities, does not, as far as I can tell, disallow anything previously known about the architecture.

What does a ''superposition of probabilities'' even mean when the urge to eat Pizza overcomes the urge to abstain, the brain being a modular system with structures competing for action, then you order your Pizza.

Even worse for the idea of free will, the motor action being initiated milliseconds before the conscious decision to indulge is reported/experienced.

 

[ryan]

Well of course the architecture is needed. That is something that I have never debated. The idea that the neuron activity can be entangled and put into a superposition of probabilities, does not, as far as I can tell, disallow anything previously known about the architecture.

What does a ''superposition of probabilities'' even mean when the urge to eat Pizza overcomes the urge to abstain, the brain being a modular system with structures competing for action, then you order your Pizza.

Even worse for the idea of free will, the motor action being initiated milliseconds before the conscious decision to indulge is reported/experienced.

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

There isn't enough information about this for either of us to make any positive claims. I have read enough now to know that there is absolutely no certainty or any consistent theory in any of this.

 

[bilby]

What does a ''superposition of probabilities'' even mean when the urge to eat Pizza overcomes the urge to abstain, the brain being a modular system with structures competing for action, then you order your Pizza.

Even worse for the idea of free will, the motor action being initiated milliseconds before the conscious decision to indulge is reported/experienced.

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

We call that 'changing our mind'; it is not vetoing the choice, but revisiting it after it was made.

There isn't enough information about this for either of us to make any positive claims. I have read enough now to know that there is absolutely no certainty or any consistent theory in any of this.

Then why are you still starting discussions on the topic?

 

[ryan]

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

We call that 'changing our mind'; it is not vetoing the choice, but revisiting it after it was made.

There isn't enough information about this for either of us to make any positive claims. I have read enough now to know that there is absolutely no certainty or any consistent theory in any of this.

Then why are you still starting discussions on the topic?

I wasn't totally sure about it before, but now I am.

 

[DBT]

What does a ''superposition of probabilities'' even mean when the urge to eat Pizza overcomes the urge to abstain, the brain being a modular system with structures competing for action, then you order your Pizza.

Even worse for the idea of free will, the motor action being initiated milliseconds before the conscious decision to indulge is reported/experienced.

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

There isn't enough information about this for either of us to make any positive claims. I have read enough now to know that there is absolutely no certainty or any consistent theory in any of this.

Libet himself proposed a veto function in an attempt to salvage free will in relation to his 500 millisecond delay experiments, but it doesn't work because of the sequence of cognitive events that produced the first 'draft' also applies to the veto of the first draft. It's just an ongoing updating of consciousness being fed information by the underlying process.

If there is sufficient time, a bad decision may be vetoed by fresh information input but the window of opportunity being milliseconds. More often than not we regret the bad decision or silly remark shortly after it is made.

 

[fast]

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

I have qualms with your word choice when you say, "consciousness is aware." The issue has more to do with mere wording. It's a substantive issue. I might not care for your use of the word, "veto," but that's just how you chose to express your idea and isn't nearly as substantive.

If I make a choice, then a choice has been made, and you speak of a choice made. The problem is your expression of the notion that consciousness made the choice. Well, I condensed it a bit and got to the heart of the matter. Yes, there is an awareness of the choice made, but it's who (not what) is aware of the choice made just like it's who (not what) made the choice.

What I'm saying is that people make choices, and it's people that are aware of choices made. This idea you have that consciousness made a choice or that consciousness is aware of the choice made is problematic. Granted, you didn't say that consciousness makes choices, but I assume you think that based on the assertion that consciousness is aware of choices made.

Yes, we might be consciously aware of the choices we make, but it's not our consciousness that makes choices anymore than our brains make choices any more than it's our consciousness going to the grocery store to buy food. We use our head, so-to-speak, but we must not fuse together the notion of who we are merely because consciousness is necessary. There is more to us than our consciousness. I have feet, for instance. Consciousness doesn't. My feet don't walk anymore than our consciousness makes decisions. I walk. I make decisions.

 

[Juma]

But, really. Why did you write that post without even touching the point I made? Didnt some part of your brain notice that it actually had a message?
Dont you realize how weird it is to respond to the post you ignore?

What part of "Goooo f yourself you miserable troll" did you not understand?

Why do you say that? It was you that started this by totally ignoring my point.

 

[ryan]

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

There isn't enough information about this for either of us to make any positive claims. I have read enough now to know that there is absolutely no certainty or any consistent theory in any of this.

Libet himself proposed a veto function in an attempt to salvage free will in relation to his 500 millisecond delay experiments, but it doesn't work because of the sequence of cognitive events that produced the first 'draft' also applies to the veto of the first draft. It's just an ongoing updating of consciousness being fed information by the underlying process.

If there is sufficient time, a bad decision may be vetoed by fresh information input but the window of opportunity being milliseconds. More often than not we regret the bad decision or silly remark shortly after it is made.

Like I said a long time ago, there are some "hard wired" responses and trivial or easy responses that I don't think we have much control over, if any. The questions in those experiments, such as when to move, seem to be of that nature

There are many reasons I have for why this readiness potential is not enough to falsify or discount free will.

1) If what seems like a conscious decision is only a reaction to the readiness potential, then for all practical purposes the readiness potential is still me. And so if we can only make unconscious decisions/responses, then it is still me who chose that. We just don't remember choosing X or why we chose it.

2) There is some interesting research done on the time-consciousness as recently as 2014 (I can't seem to find it, but I remember that it was very credible) saying that the consciousness chops time up into events that are out of the actual order they were in. So what we think we are conscious of now, we may have already been conscious of it a very short time ago. I would like to know if this new research has an effect on how we understand the Libet type experiments.

3) Some of the more recent Libet type experiments, with presumably much better technology than Libet had, has only a 60% prediction rate. So why couldn't it achieve 100% every time? Does the other 40% actually come from the actual present consciousness?

 

[ryan]

Once the consciousness is aware of the choice made, it might be able to react and veto the choice. That has been a rebuttal to the readiness potential.

I have qualms with your word choice when you say, "consciousness is aware." The issue has more to do with mere wording. It's a substantive issue. I might not care for your use of the word, "veto," but that's just how you chose to express your idea and isn't nearly as substantive.

If I make a choice, then a choice has been made, and you speak of a choice made. The problem is your expression of the notion that consciousness made the choice. Well, I condensed it a bit and got to the heart of the matter. Yes, there is an awareness of the choice made, but it's who (not what) is aware of the choice made just like it's who (not what) made the choice.

What I'm saying is that people make choices, and it's people that are aware of choices made. This idea you have that consciousness made a choice or that consciousness is aware of the choice made is problematic. Granted, you didn't say that consciousness makes choices, but I assume you think that based on the assertion that consciousness is aware of choices made.

Yes, we might be consciously aware of the choices we make, but it's not our consciousness that makes choices anymore than our brains make choices any more than it's our consciousness going to the grocery store to buy food. We use our head, so-to-speak, but we must not fuse together the notion of who we are merely because consciousness is necessary. There is more to us than our consciousness. I have feet, for instance. Consciousness doesn't. My feet don't walk anymore than our consciousness makes decisions. I walk. I make decisions.

I see what you are saying, and I agree. My unconsciousness is me too, just disconnected in terms of remembering what I chose and why I chose it.

And I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that "conscious intention"/"conscious decision making" and "unconscious intention"/"unconscious thought" are scientific terms.

 

[rousseau]

What does it even mean to have 'free will' as a human being, or to try and describe our experience as a human being?

Regardless of how we define ourselves, we're the same 'living' object in the universe having an experience that is fundamental to what we are. I don't see a need to get angsty about what we call that.

I don't have any angst about it; I don't even know if I like or dislike the idea. Many people on here seem to have strong negative feeling about it, though. There is a lot of religious connections and frustration regarding this subject, but I will probably never understand why.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you specifically are angsty about it, just that I don't see the point of the debate when human experience is static regardless of what concepts you super-impose on it.

 

[ryan]

What part of "Goooo f yourself you miserable troll" did you not understand?

Why do you say that? It was you that started this by totally ignoring my point.

I didn't reply, so you call me stupid? If you have to be aggressive, at least make it more clear why. I just saw "Stupid" for no apparent reason.