The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[untermensche]

Self genesis? Not a theory that holds water in anything. Even Krauss's universe from nothing requires the "laws" of QM to arise. One cannot just arise.

The unity of self arose; my mind arose.

From nothing?

But they have some pretty good models of the decision-making process already.

Not good models of anything related to a mind or even a working brain. Very preliminary speculation that may or may not bear fruit. It needs to be connected in some way to a real brain and the way a real brain works.

If we can either assume that the decision-making process is a part of the mind or that it runs parallel with the mind (again unnecessary complexity), then our decisions are as free as the possibilities of QM. Now I am not saying that the freedom of QM is actually free. It may be determinable using other dimensions, etc. But for now, we might have scientific free will.

Speculation that doesn't go a step beyond stating it without knowing what a mind is.

 

[fromderinside]

I am not red. I am that which can experience things like red.

You suffer from  Dualism.
The above outline is correct except for

In physics, dualism refers to mediums with properties that can be associated with the mechanics of two different phenomena. Because these two phenomena's mechanics are mutually exclusive, both are needed in order to describe the possible behaviors. All matter, for example, has wave-particle duality.

which wouldn't exist if time weren't wired into theory. Remove time no physical duality.

 

[ryan]

The unity of self arose; my mind arose.

From nothing?

The interaction, and possibly entanglement, of the whole emerged when it came together. A mind may or may not have arisen, but so far I see no reason to assume it.

But they have some pretty good models of the decision-making process already.

Not good models of anything related to a mind or even a working brain. Very preliminary speculation that may or may not bear fruit. It needs to be connected in some way to a real brain and the way a real brain works.

But that's a correction of a past model. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we have. It would be tough to rationally falsify a model for something as intricate and complex as the decision-making process.

 

[untermensche]

You suffer from  Dualism.
The above outline is correct except for

In physics, dualism refers to mediums with properties that can be associated with the mechanics of two different phenomena. Because these two phenomena's mechanics are mutually exclusive, both are needed in order to describe the possible behaviors. All matter, for example, has wave-particle duality.

which wouldn't exist if time weren't wired into theory. Remove time no physical duality.

I'm not suffering.

It is a logical truism. You can't escape it.

If there is this thing called awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

This split cannot be joined by saying I am a duelist.

I am not saying that "mind" is some substance distinct from matter.

I am saying nobody has the slightest idea what a mind is.

And in reality there is no such thing as "mind". There are only individual minds in individual animals.

 

[ryan]

You suffer from  Dualism.
The above outline is correct except for

which wouldn't exist if time weren't wired into theory. Remove time no physical duality.

I'm not suffering.

It is a logical truism. You can't escape it.

If there is this thing called awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

But that might be just another term for "interact".

 

[untermensche]

I'm not suffering.

It is a logical truism. You can't escape it.

If there is this thing called awareness there must both be that which is aware and that which it is aware of.

But that might be just another term for "interact".

It is an interaction.

It is not merely a reaction.

The mind replaces mere reaction with planned action.

 

[ryan]

But that might be just another term for "interact".

It is an interaction.

It is not merely a reaction.

The mind replaces mere reaction with planned action.

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

 

[fromderinside]

It is an interaction.

It is not merely a reaction.

The mind replaces mere reaction with planned action.

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

A pox on both your houses. Something that passes one way is not an interaction nor an awareness. It is something that passes one way. The best description of something passing one way, implying from something/somewhere to something/somewhere, is a transfer. Since it is passing energy is implied so some of that energy is lost. Such are called processes. Something that passes one way is a transfer process.

 

[ryan]

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

A pox on both your houses. Something that passes one way is not an interaction nor an awareness. It is something that passes one way. The best description of something passing one way, implying from something/somewhere to something/somewhere, is a transfer. Since it is passing energy is implied so some of that energy is lost. Such are called processes. Something that passes one way is a transfer process.

Forget plan and one-way waves; they probably cause confusion. If I am experiencing green, only I would know the true nature of what that object is. I am the object. Now an outside observer to me experiencing green is like a person trying to understand what is in a pond. She can't see the duck but can study how it interacts with the environment. The person will never know the true nature of the duck because she is not the duck. She can only experience its behavior by its interaction on its environment via waves, which of course are analogous of electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic forces.

 

[untermensche]

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

A pox on both your houses. Something that passes one way is not an interaction nor an awareness. It is something that passes one way. The best description of something passing one way, implying from something/somewhere to something/somewhere, is a transfer. Since it is passing energy is implied so some of that energy is lost. Such are called processes. Something that passes one way is a transfer process.

To transfer implies three things. That which transfers to. That which receives. And that which is transferred.

If that which receives is the mind then there is still that which receives and that which is received.

 

[untermensche]

It is an interaction.

It is not merely a reaction.

The mind replaces mere reaction with planned action.

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

Do you know what a plan is?

Is it an anticipation of the future and a deliberate manipulation of the world to create a desired outcome in that future.

Mere reaction would be the only case where that is all there is. Like the atom. All reaction. No planning.

Planning is not merely reacting.

 

[ryan]

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

Do you know what a plan is?

Is it an anticipation of the future and a deliberate manipulation of the world to create a desired outcome in that future.

Why the attitude? Why not just say something like, "How does your model work with the definition of a plan as being ..."?

Mere reaction would be the only case where that is all there is. Like the atom. All reaction. No planning.

Planning is not merely reacting.

A really interesting way of thinking about this physically is by using the prospect of quantum entanglement as part of the decision-making process (I put a link in for a few posts ago). Imagine that the particles and even molecules envolved with decision-making are in a state of quantum entanglement. This is like taking some objects and giving them the property as being one whole object. This single object has a real emergence of unity. Parts of the brain would even be entangled through time, from the point in which the entanglement began.

Now that would provide us with the feeling of being something of a complex self extending through time and space, instead of just separated bits of information one particle at a time. It would explain where the idea of time comes from instead of just being particles in the present. The superposition of the entanglement allows us to experience thoughts from the past that are entangled with thoughts we have now. As long as there is entanglement, there can be an instantaneous understanding of more than just one reaction at a time.

One thing that quantum cognitive scientists have been repeating over and over is the intuitive feeling that quantum mechanics has much to do with cognitive behaviors like the decision-making process.

 

[untermensche]

Do you know what a plan is?

Is it an anticipation of the future and a deliberate manipulation of the world to create a desired outcome in that future.

Why the attitude? Why not just say something like, "How does your model work with the definition of a plan as being ..."?

The attitude is because you are not really addressing my points.

You are just holding me at arms length and trying to shove your hobby horse into the discussion.

There is no way to bring QM into a discussion of the mind.

We are a million miles away from being able to apply knowledge of the workings of particles to the mind.

We don't even know what the mind is.

 

[ryan]

Why the attitude? Why not just say something like, "How does your model work with the definition of a plan as being ..."?

The attitude is because you are not really addressing my points.

You are just holding me at arms length and trying to shove your hobby horse into the discussion.

There is no way to bring QM into a discussion of the mind.

We are a million miles away from being able to apply knowledge of the workings of particles to the mind.

We don't even know what the mind is.

Would you agree that for many physical states A mental states B seems to exist? For example, hitting a thumb A seems to also mean mental state B. Would you agree that mind and body have this kind of relationship?

 

[untermensche]

The attitude is because you are not really addressing my points.

You are just holding me at arms length and trying to shove your hobby horse into the discussion.

There is no way to bring QM into a discussion of the mind.

We are a million miles away from being able to apply knowledge of the workings of particles to the mind.

We don't even know what the mind is.

Would you agree that for many physical states A mental states B seems to exist? For example, hitting a thumb A seems to also mean mental state B. Would you agree that mind and body have this kind of relationship?

I am saying that possibly in the case of a mind the whole is greater than the parts since the whole mind has access to memory, can learn and can plan. The mind makes a sense of the world and acts on that sense not merely on internal programming.

 

[ryan]

Would you agree that for many physical states A mental states B seems to exist? For example, hitting a thumb A seems to also mean mental state B. Would you agree that mind and body have this kind of relationship?

I am saying that possibly in the case of a mind the whole is greater than the parts since the whole mind has access to memory, can learn and can plan. The mind makes a sense of the world and acts on that sense not merely on internal programming.

Yes, nothing I said changes any of what you say here. Each person creates a mini model of the part of the universe that the individual explores. We don't get to experience what is out there; we only get to experience what we are and how our brains interact with the outside world. And that should be fine because our brains are quite an assortment of what is out there.

I am saying all of this in a positive way, but obviously I am not positive about it. Just always pretend that I am saying, "It could be that ..." before every sentence.

 

[untermensche]

Each person creates a mini model of the part of the universe that the individual explores.

We can hold ideas in our mind and act on those ideas.

It doesn't matter if you call these ideas "models". It is still a mind that is acting on them. Not forced by them.

 

[ryan]

Each person creates a mini model of the part of the universe that the individual explores.

We can hold ideas in our mind and act on those ideas.

Yes, the separate ideas are entangled together as a unified complex. We are these ideas, and it is starting to look like we have physical freedom as to what ideas we want to follow through with.

It doesn't matter if you call these ideas "models". It is still a mind that is acting on them. Not forced by them.

Yes, the label we final give it, like you say, says nothing about what it actually is. And it doesn't matter what we call any of this as long as each entity only has one term. This will avoid unnecessary factors and confusion.

 

[untermensche]

We can hold ideas in our mind and act on those ideas.

Yes, the separate ideas are entangled together as a unified complex. We are these ideas, and it is starting to look like we have physical freedom as to what ideas we want to follow through with.

We cannot be the ideas if we have the ability to act or not act upon them.

We are aware of ideas. The mind uses language and ideas to plan and make decisions.

 

[ryan]

Yes, the separate ideas are entangled together as a unified complex. We are these ideas, and it is starting to look like we have physical freedom as to what ideas we want to follow through with.

We cannot be the ideas if we have the ability to act or not act upon them.

We are also the physical mechanism that selects them.

We are aware of ideas.

Sure that's a possibility. It's just that we don't need the awareness factor. It opens up a huge and strange universe that becomes more problematic than a monistic philosophy.

Being the ideas is a self-realization that they exist, the thing you call awareness.