The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Jayjay]

I think science has already adequately explained it. Brains consist of neurons, that interact with each other according to physical laws. There is no magical free will device observed anywhere within the brain (or outside of it), nor does any phenomena or theory really require such a thing.

 

[bilby]

I think science has already adequately explained it. Brains consist of neurons, that interact with each other according to physical laws. There is no magical free will device observed anywhere within the brain (or outside of it), nor does any phenomena or theory really require such a thing.

Indeed. But some persist in claiming that quantum effects might play a part - despite the fact that both brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

Free will due to quantum effects in the brain makes as much sense as me walking through the wall into the next room due to quantum tunneling. But for some reason the Q-word is regarded by many as 'magic woo that enables my pet hypothesis'.

 

[ryan]

brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

You're awesome!

 

[ryan]

DBT, why didn't you tell me that the brains and the neurons are too large. That would have saved us months of discussion.

 

[bilby]

brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

You're awesome!

I know.

So are these guys: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59/abstract

 

[ryan]

You're awesome!

I know.

So are these guys: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59/abstract

Your explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. That is why you're awesome.

I think I know why you can't act properly. Are you worried that if you don't act like an idiot, then nobody will pay attention to you?

 

[bilby]

I know.

So are these guys: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59/abstract

Your explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. That is why you're awesome.

I think I know why you can't act properly. Are you worried that if you don't act like an idiot, then nobody will pay attention to you?

How does one act 'properly', and how does your way of acting differ from mine in its propriety?

My explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. Your refutation is: "" - which of these do you think people might find more compelling, and more 'proper' for a science discussion?

The brain and its neurons ARE too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour. I can see that you find this idea amusing; but as you have presented absolutely nothing to suggest why you think it is incorrect, your mirth seems more than a little misplaced.

Macroscopic systems have behaviour that is, to a very good approximation, classical. Neurons are sufficiently large that classical models of their behaviour give indistinguishable results from quantum models; only by looking at the substructure of neurons do you find any behaviours that are inadequately modeled by classical physics. Thought does not occur at those scales; for example, a synapse requires ~1300+ molecules of Acetylcholine to reach its activation stimulus, so quantum effects influencing individual ACh molecules, while important to an understanding of the way a synapse does what it does, are completely irrelevant to an understanding of the result of it doing those things - a few molecular interactions more or less makes no difference to anything. Quantum effects might seed chaos; but they don't act as a usable part of a decision-making process, and they cannot enable 'free will' - any more than you can influence the weather pattern next week in a controlled or deliberate way by releasing a butterfly. Each individual butterfly might (but likely won't) have an influence on the final outcome; the aggregate of all the butterflies in the world approximates so well to "no effect at all" that they are completely irrelevant. Quantum effects in biological systems are analogous to 'jitter' or 'dither' in mechanical computers - random motions that allow the system to operate more effectively, but don't have any influence on the outputs.

A carbon atom might pass through a barrier by quantum tunneling; but I can assure you that if you throw charcoal briquettes at a brick wall, none of them will go through*. That's because briquettes are too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour.

I apologize for mocking your religious faith by introducing beastly facts that undermine it; But I can assure you that responding to those facts with laughter, while it might make you feel better, won't actually make the facts go away.












*You needn't take my word for it; the experiment is easy and inexpensive to perform, and I encourage you to carry out as many iterations of it as you need to assure yourself that I am not mistaken.

 

[ryan]

Your explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. That is why you're awesome.

I think I know why you can't act properly. Are you worried that if you don't act like an idiot, then nobody will pay attention to you?

How does one act 'properly', and how does your way of acting differ from mine in its propriety?

My explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. Your refutation is: "" - which of these do you think people might find more compelling, and more 'proper' for a science discussion?

If you are going to try to make me look like an idiot to someone, you better expect something back from me.

The brain and its neurons ARE too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour. I can see that you find this idea amusing; but as you have presented absolutely nothing to suggest why you think it is incorrect, your mirth seems more than a little misplaced.

Macroscopic systems have behaviour that is, to a very good approximation, classical. Neurons are sufficiently large that classical models of their behaviour give indistinguishable results from quantum models; only by looking at the substructure of neurons do you find any behaviours that are inadequately modeled by classical physics. Thought does not occur at those scales; for example, a synapse requires ~1300+ molecules of Acetylcholine to reach its activation stimulus, so quantum effects influencing individual ACh molecules, while important to an understanding of the way a synapse does what it does, are completely irrelevant to an understanding of the result of it doing those things - a few molecular interactions more or less makes no difference to anything. Quantum effects might seed chaos; but they don't act as a usable part of a decision-making process, and they cannot enable 'free will' - any more than you can influence the weather pattern next week in a controlled or deliberate way by releasing a butterfly. Each individual butterfly might (but likely won't) have an influence on the final outcome; the aggregate of all the butterflies in the world approximates so well to "no effect at all" that they are completely irrelevant. Quantum effects in biological systems are analogous to 'jitter' or 'dither' in mechanical computers - random motions that allow the system to operate more effectively, but don't have any influence on the outputs.

A carbon atom might pass through a barrier by quantum tunneling; but I can assure you that if you throw charcoal briquettes at a brick wall, none of them will go through*. That's because briquettes are too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour.

I apologize for mocking your religious faith by introducing beastly facts that undermine it; But I can assure you that responding to those facts with laughter, while it might make you feel better, won't actually make the facts go away.

This is a lot of words but nothing solid. You point out very specific examples of QM not affecting the output, but there is no generalization to your argument.

 

[DBT]

DBT, why didn't you tell me that the brains and the neurons are too large. That would have saved us months of discussion.

I said it at the beginning of the discussion, all through the middle and right at the end.

 

[DBT]

Consciousness/experience is always after the event. The decisions are made by underlying information processing while feeding conscious activity with relevant information. That is, feelings and thoughts enter consciousness in response to the stimulus of an event.

An event happens, information is conveyed to the brain via the senses, the brain processes the information forming a conscious mental representation of the relevant information while the rest remains as unconscious activity. Attention is a narrow field.

That is an oversimplification. There is so much more going on than this and so many crucial unknowns. Things are changing almost daily in neurology.

No, it's not oversimplification. As I pointed out, one single solitary factor brings it all crashing down, perception, recognition, feelings, thoughts and decision making, all disabled or destroyed (depending on the cause) by memory function failure. You no longer recognize the most familiar people, objects, events, self...and can no longer reason or make decisions.

That is the fact of it. That is what memory loss entails.

 

[bilby]

How does one act 'properly', and how does your way of acting differ from mine in its propriety?

My explanation is that the brain and the neurons are too large. Your refutation is: "" - which of these do you think people might find more compelling, and more 'proper' for a science discussion?

If you are going to try to make me look like an idiot to someone, you better expect something back from me.

Oh, don't worry, I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot. I am more than happy to let you take the credit yourself for whatever your appearance might be.

I am awaiting something back from you with the greatest of anticipation - and I am really hoping it is something like a reasoned argument - but I'm not holding my breath, as it seems you are more interested in worrying about your appearance than you are in either refuting my position, or stating your own.

The brain and its neurons ARE too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour. I can see that you find this idea amusing; but as you have presented absolutely nothing to suggest why you think it is incorrect, your mirth seems more than a little misplaced.

Macroscopic systems have behaviour that is, to a very good approximation, classical. Neurons are sufficiently large that classical models of their behaviour give indistinguishable results from quantum models; only by looking at the substructure of neurons do you find any behaviours that are inadequately modeled by classical physics. Thought does not occur at those scales; for example, a synapse requires ~1300+ molecules of Acetylcholine to reach its activation stimulus, so quantum effects influencing individual ACh molecules, while important to an understanding of the way a synapse does what it does, are completely irrelevant to an understanding of the result of it doing those things - a few molecular interactions more or less makes no difference to anything. Quantum effects might seed chaos; but they don't act as a usable part of a decision-making process, and they cannot enable 'free will' - any more than you can influence the weather pattern next week in a controlled or deliberate way by releasing a butterfly. Each individual butterfly might (but likely won't) have an influence on the final outcome; the aggregate of all the butterflies in the world approximates so well to "no effect at all" that they are completely irrelevant. Quantum effects in biological systems are analogous to 'jitter' or 'dither' in mechanical computers - random motions that allow the system to operate more effectively, but don't have any influence on the outputs.

A carbon atom might pass through a barrier by quantum tunneling; but I can assure you that if you throw charcoal briquettes at a brick wall, none of them will go through*. That's because briquettes are too large for quantum effects to be relevant to their behaviour.

I apologize for mocking your religious faith by introducing beastly facts that undermine it; But I can assure you that responding to those facts with laughter, while it might make you feel better, won't actually make the facts go away.

This is a lot of words but nothing solid. You point out very specific examples of QM not affecting the output, but there is no generalization to your argument.

Well I did start with a generalization; but you seemed not to like it. Here it is again, in case you forgot:

"... some persist in claiming that quantum effects might play a part - despite the fact that both brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

Free will due to quantum effects in the brain makes as much sense as me walking through the wall into the next room due to quantum tunneling. But for some reason the Q-word is regarded by many as 'magic woo that enables my pet hypothesis'."

So, now that I have provided both a generalization, and some specific examples, do you have something more to say about the way brains work than just ""? Or are you comfortable with the appearance you are currently projecting (with, I might add, no effort whatsoever on my part).

 

[ryan]

That is an oversimplification. There is so much more going on than this and so many crucial unknowns. Things are changing almost daily in neurology.

No, it's not oversimplification. As I pointed out, one single solitary factor brings it all crashing down, perception, recognition, feelings, thoughts and decision making, all disabled or destroyed (depending on the cause) by memory function failure. You no longer recognize the most familiar people, objects, events, self...and can no longer reason or make decisions.

That is the fact of it. That is what memory loss entails.

I do not understand why you are bringing up memory loss.

 

[ryan]

If you are going to try to make me look like an idiot to someone, you better expect something back from me.

Oh, don't worry, I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot. I am more than happy to let you take the credit yourself for whatever your appearance might be.

I am awaiting something back from you with the greatest of anticipation - and I am really hoping it is something like a reasoned argument - but I'm not holding my breath, as it seems you are more interested in worrying about your appearance than you are in either refuting my position, or stating your own.

You're a pain in the ass. I don't know what else to say. I don't feel like I can have a real conversation with you anymore.

 

[bilby]

Oh, don't worry, I wasn't trying to make you look like an idiot. I am more than happy to let you take the credit yourself for whatever your appearance might be.

I am awaiting something back from you with the greatest of anticipation - and I am really hoping it is something like a reasoned argument - but I'm not holding my breath, as it seems you are more interested in worrying about your appearance than you are in either refuting my position, or stating your own.

You're a pain in the ass. I don't know what else to say. I don't feel like I can have a real conversation with you anymore.

Really? I think there's some projection going on here. I made a post that didn't mention you at all:

I think science has already adequately explained it. Brains consist of neurons, that interact with each other according to physical laws. There is no magical free will device observed anywhere within the brain (or outside of it), nor does any phenomena or theory really require such a thing.

Indeed. But some persist in claiming that quantum effects might play a part - despite the fact that both brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

Free will due to quantum effects in the brain makes as much sense as me walking through the wall into the next room due to quantum tunneling. But for some reason the Q-word is regarded by many as 'magic woo that enables my pet hypothesis'.

It was (as you can see) a response to Jayjay - it had nothing to do with you; I was in fact, thinking of people not on this board, such as Deepak Chopra, when I made it - and it was simply an agreement with what Jayjay said.

But you got all upset - presumably because you can see yourself in that non-specific and impersonal description. That, Ryan, is entirely your problem - if the cap fits, wear it.

I have no respect for bad arguments; And clearly, nor do you - so if we don't like having our points refuted, then we need to support them with good arguments.

"" is not a good argument, and would be a silly response even if someone attacked you personally, rather than attacking your ideas, arguments or beliefs.

If you feel that someone (including, but not limited to, me) has attacked you as a person, (rather than simply attacking a belief, idea, or argument that you happen to like or agree with), then I encourage you (and anyone else here in the same position) to report the post for moderator action - the ToU here explicitly prohibit such attacks.

If you simply don't like what I have to say, then there is an 'ignore' function that will render my posts invisible to you.

If I am factually wrong about something, then I welcome your reasoning and evidence that will allow me to learn from my error. But saying "You're a pain in the ass. I don't know what else to say. I don't feel like I can have a real conversation with you anymore", doesn't help at all (and likely does violate the strict letter of the ToU, too).

 

[ryan]

You're a pain in the ass. I don't know what else to say. I don't feel like I can have a real conversation with you anymore.

Really? I think there's some projection going on here. I made a post that didn't mention you at all:

I think science has already adequately explained it. Brains consist of neurons, that interact with each other according to physical laws. There is no magical free will device observed anywhere within the brain (or outside of it), nor does any phenomena or theory really require such a thing.

Indeed. But some persist in claiming that quantum effects might play a part - despite the fact that both brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

Free will due to quantum effects in the brain makes as much sense as me walking through the wall into the next room due to quantum tunneling. But for some reason the Q-word is regarded by many as 'magic woo that enables my pet hypothesis'.

It was (as you can see) a response to Jayjay - it had nothing to do with you; I was in fact, thinking of people not on this board, such as Deepak Chopra, when I made it - and it was simply an agreement with what Jayjay said.

It was in the same paragraph. Even if it wasn't in the same paragraph, it is obviously a knock on me.

I will never initiate conflict, but I will certainly give it back.

If you feel that someone (including, but not limited to, me) has attacked you as a person, (rather than simply attacking a belief, idea, or argument that you happen to like or agree with), then I encourage you (and anyone else here in the same position) to report the post for moderator action - the ToU here explicitly prohibit such attacks.

I don't care that much.

 

[bilby]

Really? I think there's some projection going on here. I made a post that didn't mention you at all:

I think science has already adequately explained it. Brains consist of neurons, that interact with each other according to physical laws. There is no magical free will device observed anywhere within the brain (or outside of it), nor does any phenomena or theory really require such a thing.

Indeed. But some persist in claiming that quantum effects might play a part - despite the fact that both brains and neurons are far too large for such effects to be significant.

Free will due to quantum effects in the brain makes as much sense as me walking through the wall into the next room due to quantum tunneling. But for some reason the Q-word is regarded by many as 'magic woo that enables my pet hypothesis'.

It was (as you can see) a response to Jayjay - it had nothing to do with you; I was in fact, thinking of people not on this board, such as Deepak Chopra, when I made it - and it was simply an agreement with what Jayjay said.

It was in the same paragraph. Even if it wasn't in the same paragraph, it is obviously a knock on me.

What I quoted there is my ENTIRE post, un-edited; including my quote of Jayjay's post to which it is a response - also un-edited. And it was not a knock on you - but as I say, if you think it is, then that's entirely projection on your part - it doesn't mention or reference you, or any post of yours, in any way. If the cap fits...

I will never initiate conflict, but I will certainly give it back.

The evidence is right here to show otherwise. It's easy to mistakenly think that someone is attacking you on the Internet; And that error often leads to the initiation of needless conflict.

If you feel that someone (including, but not limited to, me) has attacked you as a person, (rather than simply attacking a belief, idea, or argument that you happen to like or agree with), then I encourage you (and anyone else here in the same position) to report the post for moderator action - the ToU here explicitly prohibit such attacks.

I don't care that much.

OK.

 

[DBT]

No, it's not oversimplification. As I pointed out, one single solitary factor brings it all crashing down, perception, recognition, feelings, thoughts and decision making, all disabled or destroyed (depending on the cause) by memory function failure. You no longer recognize the most familiar people, objects, events, self...and can no longer reason or make decisions.

That is the fact of it. That is what memory loss entails.

I do not understand why you are bringing up memory loss.

Memory being the information base that enables information processing - memory is a body of information - and decision making. No memory function = no decision making = no experience of conscious agency or the illusion of 'free will'

The illusion being exposed by the breakdown in the ability to make conscious decisions.... and of course 'free' will.

 

[Malintent]

I do not understand why you are bringing up memory loss.

Memory being the information base that enables information processing - memory is a body of information - and decision making. No memory function = no decision making = no experience of conscious agency or the illusion of 'free will'

The illusion being exposed by the breakdown in the ability to make conscious decisions.... and of course 'free' will.

.. and the loss of memory causing a loss of decision making is relevant to the existence of free will how.....?
If we agree that free will exists at all (I do not), what impact is there if it is reliant on memory?
I do not disagree that the fictional thing called free will would be reliant on memory, if there was such a thing, mind you.

 

[DBT]

Memory being the information base that enables information processing - memory is a body of information - and decision making. No memory function = no decision making = no experience of conscious agency or the illusion of 'free will'

The illusion being exposed by the breakdown in the ability to make conscious decisions.... and of course 'free' will.

.. and the loss of memory causing a loss of decision making is relevant to the existence of free will how.....?
If we agree that free will exists at all (I do not), what impact is there if it is reliant on memory?
I do not disagree that the fictional thing called free will would be reliant on memory, if there was such a thing, mind you.

As I've already said, it is generally believed that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. As memory function is the very foundation of neuronal decision making, connectivity, etc, it is memory that enables decision making and the belief that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. If memory function collapses the illusion is exposed.

 

[Lion IRC]

...one single solitary factor brings it all crashing down, perception, recognition, feelings, thoughts and decision making, all disabled or destroyed (depending on the cause) by memory function failure. You no longer recognize the most familiar people, objects, events, self...and can no longer reason or make decisions.

That is the fact of it. That is what memory loss entails.

No, I don't think that's right.
Removing the (previously available) choice options doesn't remove ALL free will choice.

If a person 'forgets' that they made a New Years Resolution to stop smoking that hardly removes their free will. In fact many people regret their choices only after the benefit of hindsight - when they later realise why their (free) choice was a bad one.