The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

With classical mechanics, a person can not choose otherwise. With undeterminable QM, there is no reason why one couldn't have chosen otherwise.

For example, could the photon have shown up at a different position on the screen: QM yes, CM no.

So fucking what? "Could have chosen otherwise" isnt a valid concept anyway. If you doesnt have better control over your decision then you havent made a decision at all, you just randomized it.

Random or determined, a decision is still a decision. They are trying to figure out which it is. And this "free decision" might only be random from an outside point of view. The agent's freedom would appear random by another person.

But let me try to give the agent some reason or method to its decision-making while still being free.

Maybe the agent has the freedom to choose how he/she wants to fulfill a desire when there are physically/mechanically free options. If I want ice cream, I may have the freedom to choose to wait for a commercial and then walk to the freezer. If I were in a Newtonian universe, maybe the state of the entire universe requires me to miss the rest of my show and walk around the house 3 times before I could get the freezer.

 

[DBT]

Nice dodge, focus on a single comment and ignore everything else that I said. I made the comment because you raised the role of microtubules for your 'model' of free will in the past. If there is something to be found within your articles that you feel supports your case, provide the relevant parts.

How can you blame me; I haven't mentioned microtubules in a long time.

So you no longer believe that what you were arguing for when you used microtubules to support your contentions is valid?

Quantum cognition explains the decision-making process better than prior theories. If true, a person might be able to have chosen differently.

Your conclusion is simply tacked onto a claim that does not actually support the conclusion that you so strenuously assert.

I've repeatedly pointed out that if we could have chosen differently in the instance of a decision being made, we would avoid making costly decisions that may be regretted a moment after having been made. You just ignore this and assert the same thing over again,

With classical mechanics, a person can not choose otherwise. With undeterminable QM, there is no reason why one couldn't have chosen otherwise.

Neither classical determinism nor non determined probability wave function is subject to your will or your conscious choice, another thing you ignore, only to imply and assert the opposite. You don't get to choose particle position with an act of will.

For example, could the photon have shown up at a different position on the screen: QM yes, CM no.

Try to influence where and when the photon appears on the screen, if you can, demonstrate your ability consistently and you may be onto something.

That's not what all of the information I have provided indicates.

Explain it in your own words so I don't have to trawl through your links hoping to discover what you mean.

 

[ryan]

How can you blame me; I haven't mentioned microtubules in a long time.

So you no longer believe that what you were arguing for when you used microtubules to support your contentions is valid?

I didn't say that.

The microtubules mostly came about because you could not believe that QM was at all involved with the consciousness.

Quantum cognition explains the decision-making process better than prior theories. If true, a person might be able to have chosen differently.

Your conclusion is simply tacked onto a claim that does not actually support the conclusion that you so strenuously assert.

I've repeatedly pointed out that if we could have chosen differently in the instance of a decision being made, we would avoid making costly decisions that may be regretted a moment after having been made. You just ignore this and assert the same thing over again,

I have given you this information a few times already. If you would read up on quantum cognition you would see that they talk about the advantages of QC for this very reason.

"Wang argues that our minds work the same way. Before we make a choice, our options are all superpositioned. Each possibility adds a whole new layer of dimensions, making the decision process even more complicated. Under conventional approaches to psychology, the process makes no sense, but under a quantum approach, Wang argues that the decision-making process suddenly becomes clear. It’s why people might make choices they know are against their own best interests.".

from https://www.inverse.com/article/6152-quantum-physics-explains-why-you-suck-at-making-decisions

With classical mechanics, a person can not choose otherwise. With undeterminable QM, there is no reason why one couldn't have chosen otherwise.

Neither classical determinism nor non determined probability wave function is subject to your will or your conscious choice, another thing you ignore, only to imply and assert the opposite.

Here it is you who is just disagreeing with me and asserting the opposite. I am at least taking definitions of "free", "will" and "decision" and trying to make free will work scientifically. I have only shown that the definitions and the concept is possible scientifically.

You don't get to choose particle position with an act of will.

Please read, "The crucial point about entanglement relevant to this book is that entangled systems cannot be validly decomposed and modelled as separate subsystems. This opens the door to developing quantum-like models of cognitive phenomena which are not decompositional in nature.".

from http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/11991/frontmatter/9781107011991_frontmatter.pdf

That's not what all of the information I have provided indicates.

Explain it in your own words so I don't have to trawl through your links hoping to discover what you mean.

Unlike cognition, quantum cognition includes decision-making. Refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

 

[DBT]

So you no longer believe that what you were arguing for when you used microtubules to support your contentions is valid?

I didn't say that.

The microtubules mostly came about because you could not believe that QM was at all involved with the consciousness.

It's not 'involved with consciousness' any more than being a part of the architecture of the brain and its functions. It is the brain as a whole that functions as an information processor and not that microtubules somehow endow it with the magic of 'free will'

Unlike cognition, quantum cognition includes decision-making. Refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

That may be so, quite possible as described in the quote.... but still doesn't support your contention in the least. You need to explain how 'could have chosen otherwise' applies to architecture and function that is not chosen in the first place, something that is not subject to conscious decision making or conscious will, equates to your version of 'free will'

 

[ryan]

I didn't say that.

The microtubules mostly came about because you could not believe that QM was at all involved with the consciousness.

It's not 'involved with consciousness' any more than being a part of the architecture of the brain and its functions. It is the brain as a whole that functions as an information processor and not that microtubules somehow endow it with the magic of 'free will'

Unlike cognition, quantum cognition includes decision-making. Refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26058709

"To be functionally relevant in the brain, the dynamics and quantum entanglement of the phosphorus nuclear spins must be capable of modulating the excitability and signaling of neurons—which we take as a working definition of ‘‘quantum cognition’’.".

from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf

That may be so, quite possible as described in the quote.... but still doesn't support your contention in the least. You need to explain how 'could have chosen otherwise' applies to architecture and function that is not chosen in the first place, something that is not subject to conscious decision making or conscious will, equates to your version of 'free will'

If there are at least two possible choices that could have been made due to quantum superposition factors, then the agent might have been able to choose otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody has a clue what consciousness is.

But some are sure quantum mechanics, something that describes the behavior of matter at the level of the particle, is involved.

 

[fromderinside]

If there are at least two possible choices that could have been made due to quantum superposition factors, then the agent might have been able to choose otherwise.

This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

 

[ryan]

If there are at least two possible choices that could have been made due to quantum superposition factors, then the agent might have been able to choose otherwise.

This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

Unless your name is DBT, I am not sure what is going on here.

Why and how did you choose this as your response to my reply to you?

Hmmmm, there are no words that I can type that would convey how annoyed, confused, frustrated, saddened, shocked, ...etc. by this post, especially the mention "falsify science". WHAAAAT THE .... ?!?!?!?!?!

 

[ryan]

Nobody has a clue what consciousness is.

But some are sure quantum mechanics, something that describes the behavior of matter at the level of the particle, is involved.

Think about a superposition of systems that are in a state of quantum entanglement. In such a system, a group of particles would have irreducible properties that can do things that all of the particles combined individually can't do without entanglement. In a sense the group becomes a particle. It is a holistic way of looking at mechanisms of a process instead of the individual particles

 

[untermensche]

Nobody has a clue what consciousness is.

But some are sure quantum mechanics, something that describes the behavior of matter at the level of the particle, is involved.

Think about a superposition of systems that are in a state of quantum entanglement. In such a system, a group of particles would have irreducible properties that can do things that all of the particles combined individually can't do without entanglement. In a sense the group becomes a particle. It is a holistic way of looking at mechanisms of a process instead of the individual particles

Quantum entanglement pertains to particles.

When consciousness is understood to the level of the particle there may be some way to relate it to consciousness.

What is consciousness?

What level does it exist at? The cellular? The organ? The particle?

 

[ryan]

Think about a superposition of systems that are in a state of quantum entanglement. In such a system, a group of particles would have irreducible properties that can do things that all of the particles combined individually can't do without entanglement. In a sense the group becomes a particle. It is a holistic way of looking at mechanisms of a process instead of the individual particles

Quantum entanglement pertains to particles.

Do you not believe that groups of particles can be entangled?

When consciousness is understood to the level of the particle there may be some way to relate it to consciousness.

What is consciousness?

What level does it exist at? The cellular? The organ? The particle?

Until we have reason to believe that there are two different kinds of substance, namely mind and matter, why should we even start down that path?

 

[untermensche]

Quantum entanglement pertains to particles.

Do you not believe that groups of particles can be entangled?

When consciousness is understood to the level of the particle there may be some way to relate it to consciousness.

What is consciousness?

What level does it exist at? The cellular? The organ? The particle?

Until we have reason to believe that there are two different kinds of substance, namely mind and matter, why should we even start down that path?

What entanglement effects do we see at the level of the organ?

What entanglement effects do we see in the liver?

 

[fromderinside]

messy

 

[ryan]

Do you not believe that groups of particles can be entangled?

When consciousness is understood to the level of the particle there may be some way to relate it to consciousness.

What is consciousness?

What level does it exist at? The cellular? The organ? The particle?

Until we have reason to believe that there are two different kinds of substance, namely mind and matter, why should we even start down that path?

What entanglement effects do we see at the level of the organ?

What entanglement effects do we see in the liver?

Please read all of the links of this new science that I have posted for DBT. I am not going through it all again.

 

[ryan]

First let me refresh your recollection.

fromderinside: This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

Your response wasn't a response since it did not disconnect quantum from macro nor did it connect beyond a possibility, a wish, since there was no evidence to support it.

This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

Unless your name is DBT, I am not sure what is going on here.

Why and how did you choose this as your response to my reply to you?

Hmmmm, there are no words that I can type that would convey how annoyed, confused, frustrated, saddened, shocked, ...etc. by this post, especially the mention "falsify science". WHAAAAT THE .... ?!?!?!?!?!

So now after I finally come back and note you just went on your way as if you had leave to do so I just can't resist nailing down your 'wish' presentations. I decided to give you a real test. Science is based on determinism, implies it in all theory and experiment. One can't have experiment without this then that presumptions.

So while you are wailing away you might just as well try to reconcile scientific method with micro phenomena operating independent of macro phenomena. Just write up a proof that the scientific method can't work even though there are literally billions of studies demonstrating it does.

I dare you to read how I got to that post. It might require a painful realization about your recent posts. I have only posted scientific research and theoretical information.

I have honestly never seen such a disconnect to a conversation in all of my time on TF. Please for the sake and sanity of internet forums everywhere, try to read the research and information that I have provided from scientific - yes scientific - publications.

At least the person trying to relate micro to macro by eliminating time ("Physics without Time") has some reasons - His removal of time removes temporal uncertainty while preserving place and size - other than "well, it could if you purse your lips hard enough."

Not too much to ask of megamind is it?/couldn't resist.

Try to understand that I am only making the claim under certain scientific theories - ones that are quite mainstream I should add.

 

[fromderinside]

First let me refresh your recollection.

Ryan, have you ever wondered why determinism works in macro physical theory hen there is always the small doing what it is doing?

Its because QM don't impact determination. An unstabe atom will always decay. First it is not decayed, has an energy level, then it is decayed, has a lower energy level. All that is in doubt is when. However state A always precedes state B.

Decision making process are fixed as macro-theory predicts. Nope, no weenie jumping up and becoming a genie.

This first part uses quantum theory to model decision-making (quantum cognition),

"Wang argues that our minds work the same way. Before we make a choice, our options are all superpositioned. Each possibility adds a whole new layer of dimensions, making the decision process even more complicated. Under conventional approaches to psychology, the process makes no sense, but under a quantum approach, Wang argues that the decision-making process suddenly becomes clear. It’s why people might make choices they know are against their own best interests.".

from https://www.inverse.com/article/6152-quantum-physics-explains-why-you-suck-at-making-decisions

A brief abstract of Wang's research is here, http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/24/3/163.abstract .


This second part is a working model of quantum cognition, https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ; especially read part 7 "Quantum processing with neurons".

Are you kidding me an unsubstantiated model? So now to the more or less presenrt

If there are at least two possible choices that could have been made due to quantum superposition factors, then the agent might have been able to choose otherwise.

This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

So now after I finally come back and note you just went on your way as if you had leave to do so I just can't resist nailing down your 'wish' presentations. I decided to give you a real test. Science is based on determinism, implies it in all theory and experiment. One can't have experiment without this then that presumptions.

So while you are wailing away you might just as well try to reconcile scientific method with micro phenomena operating independent of macro phenomena. Just write up a proof that the scientific method can't work even though there are literally billions of studies demonstrating it does.

At least the person trying to relate micro to macro by eliminating time ("Physics without Time") has some reasons - His removal of time removes temporal uncertainty while preserving place and size - other than "well, it could if you purse your lips hard enough".

Sorry about the original it was composed from three posts and it got messed up.

Finally I have to say that if you are using main line theories based on evidence produced by the scientific method what you claim is not possible.

 

[untermensche]

Please read all of the links of this new science that I have posted for DBT. I am not going through it all again.

You should try to develop arguments of your own so that you can enter into an exchange.

I don't think this is really science. It is speculation.

 

[fromderinside]

One more I'm pissed off response. This goes back to the original post to which I got the ball rolling yesterday. I've been dealing with quantum this and quantum that model since I first got into cognitive science in the sixties with a Dr. Sutherland, and later with and several others who posed multiple multi-correlation and auto-correlation perceptual processing models. They're models all dropped after a time as we got more information about how the brain actually works. Models are lots of fun. But to suggest decision making reifies QM processes, or, wave/particle duality is about as realistic as suggesting apes have human thoughts.

Its tired old hat and about as useful as believing Area fifty-whatever is real. Try to understand this. Brain nor mind are designed. They are evolved if they exist (as you know I find no evidence for mind). Trying to integrate something to replicate primary physical physical function is a bit much to ask of something that acquired language less than 500 thousand years ago after up to 650 million years of evolving (life).

When I look at the relation between sound location and how the head moves in response to it taking place (twig snap) I'm impressed with the simplicity of solution congruent with primacy of task. Left-right response neurons are positioned near the ear (cochlear nucleus) capable of relaying signals with arrival times of less than one ms from left and right cochlea. These are relayed to muscular controls for eyes and neck located in the pons as part of the reticular activating system. Such a simple mechanism permitting us to take sound onsets as signals to guide us to look this or that way.

Not all things are so rudimentary nor elegant. Columnar organization is a principle that uses a neural development technique for many different functions in the cortex. Some stuff cycles up and down the pathways several times tuning this or that precept. Generally this happens because there is time for such slow integration. The point? The brain uses what it has available to get the job done. Decision making is no different and it is quite time consuming and often very fallible. so I wouldn't go looking fors ome whiz bang solution in that area.

 

[ryan]

First let me refresh your recollection.

This first part uses quantum theory to model decision-making (quantum cognition),

"Wang argues that our minds work the same way. Before we make a choice, our options are all superpositioned. Each possibility adds a whole new layer of dimensions, making the decision process even more complicated. Under conventional approaches to psychology, the process makes no sense, but under a quantum approach, Wang argues that the decision-making process suddenly becomes clear. It’s why people might make choices they know are against their own best interests.".

from https://www.inverse.com/article/6152-quantum-physics-explains-why-you-suck-at-making-decisions

A brief abstract of Wang's research is here, http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/24/3/163.abstract .


This second part is a working model of quantum cognition, https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ; especially read part 7 "Quantum processing with neurons".

Are you kidding me an unsubstantiated model? So now to the more or less presenrt

I don't understand this.

If there are at least two possible choices that could have been made due to quantum superposition factors, then the agent might have been able to choose otherwise.

This is the best you can do after a page of quantum raving after you failed, completely, to counter my argument that Macro theory and activity, with Quantum activity underlying it, is determinant.

All that hand waving about possibility.

Yet there exists no evidence that macro behavior is other than deterministic. One can claim behavior is deterministic on the notion that science works, that outcomes can be explained by antecedents, can lead to a science based on the notion that things have determinable causes.

Get it though your closed mind that possibilities are nothing but that, possibilities. One needs evidence that a possibility is operating to sustain such a notion. Find one. Show me where science fails, or, produce a science with evidence developed somehow, that does not require deterministic conditions. Simple challenge. Falsify science. Otherwise put your Quantum 'argument' in quotes as it should be because it isn't real.

So now after I finally come back and note you just went on your way as if you had leave to do so I just can't resist nailing down your 'wish' presentations. I decided to give you a real test. Science is based on determinism, implies it in all theory and experiment. One can't have experiment without this then that presumptions.

So while you are wailing away you might just as well try to reconcile scientific method with micro phenomena operating independent of macro phenomena. Just write up a proof that the scientific method can't work even though there are literally billions of studies demonstrating it does.

At least the person trying to relate micro to macro by eliminating time ("Physics without Time") has some reasons - His removal of time removes temporal uncertainty while preserving place and size - other than "well, it could if you purse your lips hard enough".

Sorry about the original it was composed from three posts and it got messed up.

Finally I have to say that if you are using main line theories based on evidence produced by the scientific method what you claim is not possible.

What exactly do you think I am claiming?

 

[ryan]

Please read all of the links of this new science that I have posted for DBT. I am not going through it all again.

You should try to develop arguments of your own so that you can enter into an exchange.

Usually people want it the other way around. I spent waaaaaay too much time already putting it into my own argument.

I don't think this is really science. It is speculation.

It's a hypothesis, but it's still science.