The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

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.

It is important that you know the context of the discussion between DBT and me. Over a year ago, I mentioned something about the possibility of free will, and DBT wouldn't have any of it, not even the possibility. From that day forward, it has been implied that I am only talking about finding a scientific possibility for free will, not necessarily a strong one.

 

[fromderinside]

It is important that you know the context of the discussion between DBT and me. Over a year ago, I mentioned something about the possibility of free will, and DBT wouldn't have any of it, not even the possibility. From that day forward, it has been implied that I am only talking about finding a scientific possibility for free will, not necessarily a strong one.

I was there then when you were wrong and I'm here now and you're still wrong even in speculation. We are but biological machines walking..... (think dead man walking).

 

[ryan]

It is important that you know the context of the discussion between DBT and me. Over a year ago, I mentioned something about the possibility of free will, and DBT wouldn't have any of it, not even the possibility. From that day forward, it has been implied that I am only talking about finding a scientific possibility for free will, not necessarily a strong one.

We are but biological machines walking..... (think dead man walking).

And nothing I claim changes any of that.

 

[fromderinside]

We are but biological machines walking..... (think dead man walking).

And nothing I claim changes any of that.

There comes a point where lack of meaning becomes Trump noise. You're reached that point.

Either you like to see yourself in print or your ego has exploded.

 

[ryan]

And nothing I claim changes any of that.

There comes a point where lack of meaning becomes Trump noise. You're reached that point.

Either you like to see yourself in print or your ego has exploded.

This is such an empty accusation. I have been focused and serious about this topic. Today is the first day I have seen you actually engage in a topic; usually your in-and-out poetry lasts two posts tops.

 

[Juma]

an unsubstantiated model?

Yes, exactly that. An unsubstanyiated model.

No emperical evidens for it.

 

[DBT]

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

Why ever not? I go over the same thing several times a day for the last fifteen years pointing out why the term 'free will' is useless - neither macro scale determinism nor random radioactive decay is matter of choice - as description of the process of decision making...but still the same erroneous claims keep coming.

 

[DBT]

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.

Consciousness is not aware of quantum superposition. Information regarding a choice to be made is a matter of memory and cost to benefit ratio and not quantum superposition. If you could have chosen otherwise and thereby avoided a costly error you would have done so and made the better choice through your 'quantum superposition' ability. But you didn't and you can't. Instead you regret the choice you made just seconds after making it. Regrettably, too late to change. Another thing you can't do is go back in time and do things differently.

 

[ryan]

an unsubstantiated model?

Yes, exactly that. An unsubstanyiated model.

No emperical evidens for it.

I only ever used those references to argue that free will is possible. That is what the discussion with DBT is about.

And quantum cognition is the best they have now. In every research paper that I posted, QC explains cognition and the decision-making process where others fail.

 

[ryan]

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.

Consciousness is not aware of quantum superposition.

I don't see how this has anything to do with my argument.

Information regarding a choice to be made is a matter of memory and cost to benefit ratio and not quantum superposition. If you could have chosen otherwise and thereby avoided a costly error you would have done so and made the better choice through your 'quantum superposition' ability. But you didn't and you can't. Instead you regret the choice you made just seconds after making it. Regrettably, too late to change.

Please read the article with the heading, "You’re not irrational, you’re just quantum probabilistic", or at least the following quote.

"She used the example of Schrödinger’s cat—the thought experiment in which a cat inside a box has some probability of being alive or dead. Both possibilities have potential in our minds. In that sense, the cat has a potential to become dead or alive at the same time. The effect is called quantum superposition. When we open the box, both possibilities are no longer superimposed, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

With quantum cognition, it’s as if each decision we make is our own unique Schrödinger’s cat."

from https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/09/14/youre-not-irrational-youre-just-quantum-probabilistic/

Another thing you can't do is go back in time and do things differently.

Every once and a while you bring this up, but I don't know what it has to do with my argument.

 

[Juma]

Yes, exactly that. An unsubstanyiated model.

No emperical evidens for it.

I only ever used those references to argue that free will is possible. That is what the discussion with DBT is about.

And quantum cognition is the best they have now. In every research paper that I posted, QC explains cognition and the decision-making process where fail.

No it doesnt. As long as it doesnt have any empiricial evidens for it you cannot use it as argument for anything.

 

[ryan]

I only ever used those references to argue that free will is possible. That is what the discussion with DBT is about.

And quantum cognition is the best they have now. In every research paper that I posted, QC explains cognition and the decision-making process where others fail.

No it doesnt.

Yes, read any of them. QC explain things that current theories can't, for example, why people change opinions on questions due to the order given to them.

As long as it doesnt have any empiricial evidens for it you cannot use it as argument for anything.

The working model of QC is a scientific hypothesis.

 

[DBT]

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.

Consciousness is not aware of quantum superposition.

I don't see how this has anything to do with my argument.

That is what you are implying when you claim ''the agent might have been able to choose otherwise'' - if you meant an unconscious agent, you need to explain how that relates to your concept of free will.

Please read the article with the heading, "You’re not irrational, you’re just quantum probabilistic", or at least the following quote.

"She used the example of Schrödinger’s cat—the thought experiment in which a cat inside a box has some probability of being alive or dead. Both possibilities have potential in our minds. In that sense, the cat has a potential to become dead or alive at the same time. The effect is called quantum superposition. When we open the box, both possibilities are no longer superimposed, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

With quantum cognition, it’s as if each decision we make is our own unique Schrödinger’s cat."

from https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/09/14/youre-not-irrational-youre-just-quantum-probabilistic/

I don't see how this supports your argument. You don't get to chose quantum states. It is the criteria that is important to the individual, cost to benefit ratios assessed based on past experience/memory function. Which, if memory function fails means an end to decision making ability altogether. That is what is being persistently ignored.

Every once and a while you bring this up, but I don't know what it has to do with my argument.

It shows that you do not have the ability to make a different decision in any given instance in time other than the one your brain makes in any given instance in time.

 

[ryan]

I don't see how this has anything to do with my argument.

That is what you are implying when you claim ''the agent might have been able to choose otherwise'' - if you meant an unconscious agent, you need to explain how that relates to your concept of free will.

That's not my concept of free will; that is the concept of free will. That's the free will I have been talking about.

Please read the article with the heading, "You’re not irrational, you’re just quantum probabilistic", or at least the following quote.

"She used the example of Schrödinger’s cat—the thought experiment in which a cat inside a box has some probability of being alive or dead. Both possibilities have potential in our minds. In that sense, the cat has a potential to become dead or alive at the same time. The effect is called quantum superposition. When we open the box, both possibilities are no longer superimposed, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

With quantum cognition, it’s as if each decision we make is our own unique Schrödinger’s cat."

from https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/09/14/youre-not-irrational-youre-just-quantum-probabilistic/

I don't see how this supports your argument. You don't get to chose quantum states. It is the criteria that is important to the individual, cost to benefit ratios assessed based on past experience/memory function. Which, if memory function fails means an end to decision making ability altogether. That is what is being persistently ignored.

An important part of that article is that QC explains why we act irrationally, “Whenever something comes up that isn’t consistent with classical theories, we often label it as ‘irrational.’ But from the perspective of quantum cognition, some findings aren’t irrational anymore. They’re consistent with quantum theory—and with how people really behave.”.

Every once and a while you bring this up, but I don't know what it has to do with my argument.

It shows that you do not have the ability to make a different decision in any given instance in time other than the one your brain makes in any given instance in time.

Do you understand the idea of the choices being in a superposition? Let's say I could either get home by turning left or turning right. The idea is that my brain knows about both options, and maybe some consequences, simultaneously. The one that is "chosen" is objectively random, but it is still the choice I made nonetheless.

 

[DBT]

That is what you are implying when you claim ''the agent might have been able to choose otherwise'' - if you meant an unconscious agent, you need to explain how that relates to your concept of free will.

That's not my concept of free will; that is the concept of free will. That's the free will I have been talking about.

Not everyone uses that definition.

An important part of that article is that QC explains why we act irrationally, “Whenever something comes up that isn’t consistent with classical theories, we often label it as ‘irrational.’ But from the perspective of quantum cognition, some findings aren’t irrational anymore. They’re consistent with quantum theory—and with how people really behave.”.

This still doesn't support your argument; that ''the agent might have been able to choose otherwise'' - ''otherwise'' does not include choices evolving and changing over time with new information being made available to the system, which nobody is disputing as far as I know.

Do you understand the idea of the choices being in a superposition? Let's say I could either get home by turning left or turning right. The idea is that my brain knows about both options, and maybe some consequences, simultaneously. The one that is "chosen" is objectively random, but it is still the choice I made nonetheless.

Superposition does not manifest at macro scale, nor is decision making carried out on the basis of random wave function collapse.

Memory function provides the criteria and the options that are being presented by the situation you happen to be in.

You need to account for memory function failure as the major cause of decision making collapse. Which you persistently avoid doing.

 

[fromderinside]

Do you understand the idea of the choices being in a superposition? Let's say I could either get home by turning left or turning right. The idea is that my brain knows about both options, and maybe some consequences, simultaneously. The one that is "chosen" is objectively random, but it is still the choice I made nonetheless.

I was going to leave just the last paragraph. However you make presumptions that need be addressed. What is this about your brain knowing something? Brains may have patterns reflecting history that are being accessed now which is a lot different from the brain knowing.

Simple association can get you there whereas knowing implies a reservoir of known things which has never been a contention for free will. The brain primarily works in real time with a history of past activity impressed in past usage of pathways. Really a lot different from knowing. Blending mind or brain knowing (same thing) is a dualistic construction which is obviously no longer in play.

I seriously believe you should First get acquainted with  Free will then perhaps a few sorties into the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic. DBT, Togo, others, and I have been on this field science I arrived here in 2008. You are both a late and naive comer. A point comes when repeating yourself just doesn't extend the conversation. Prior to that I was on NYT forums where free will was an oft discussed problem back to 1998.

addendum: You've arrived at the chanting level. Close your account! When you understand that if micro phenomena don't change macro natural law you will have learned something about micro-phenomena and free will. The poetry continues.

 

[ryan]

That's not my concept of free will; that is the concept of free will. That's the free will I have been talking about.

Not everyone uses that definition.

But I have always told you which definition I was using.

An important part of that article is that QC explains why we act irrationally, “Whenever something comes up that isn’t consistent with classical theories, we often label it as ‘irrational.’ But from the perspective of quantum cognition, some findings aren’t irrational anymore. They’re consistent with quantum theory—and with how people really behave.”.

This still doesn't support your argument; that ''the agent might have been able to choose otherwise'' - ''otherwise'' does not include choices evolving and changing over time with new information being made available to the system, which nobody is disputing as far as I know.

I am not sure I know what you are getting at. From what I am reading, there are multiple choices simultaneously suspended in a superposition when it comes to certain kinds of decisions.

Do you understand the idea of the choices being in a superposition? Let's say I could either get home by turning left or turning right. The idea is that my brain knows about both options, and maybe some consequences, simultaneously. The one that is "chosen" is objectively random, but it is still the choice I made nonetheless.

Superposition does not manifest at macro scale,

Of course it does, that's the whole point of Schrodinger's cat. One very small and simple superposition causes its butterfly effects to be suspended in a superposition too, until the whole thing collapses.

nor is decision making carried out on the basis of random wave function collapse.

Then you have to write a paper that falsifies the hypothesis that I keep posting.

Memory function provides the criteria and the options that are being presented by the situation you happen to be in.

You need to account for memory function failure as the major cause of decision making collapse. Which you persistently avoid doing.

I don't see how what you say here conflicts with anything I say; of course memories are an important part of decision-making.

 

[ryan]

Do you understand the idea of the choices being in a superposition? Let's say I could either get home by turning left or turning right. The idea is that my brain knows about both options, and maybe some consequences, simultaneously. The one that is "chosen" is objectively random, but it is still the choice I made nonetheless.

I was going to leave just the last paragraph. However you make presumptions that need be addressed. What is this about your brain knowing something? Brains may have patterns reflecting history that are being accessed now which is a lot different from the brain knowing.

Simple association can get you there whereas knowing implies a reservoir of known things which has never been a contention for free will. The brain primarily works in real time with a history of past activity impressed in past usage of pathways. Really a lot different from knowing. Blending mind or brain knowing (same thing) is a dualistic construction which is obviously no longer in play.

Like I told other newcomers, I am not going to go through it all again. Get caught up and see how I have come to this by reading previous posts. I don't have the time or the interest in explaining this to everyone. Frankly, unless you can behave like DBT, I don't really care much to discuss things with people who act like you.

I seriously believe you should First get acquainted with  Free will then perhaps a few sorties into the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic. DBT, Togo, others, and I have been on this field science I arrived here in 2008. You are both a late and naive comer. A point comes when repeating yourself just doesn't extend the conversation. Prior to that I was on NYT forums where free will was an oft discussed problem back to 1998.

Come on, you are right because of the amount of time you have spent on TF? There is stuff going on outside of TF.

addendum: You've arrived at the chanting level. Close your account! When you understand that if micro phenomena don't change macro natural law you will have learned something about micro-phenomena and free will. The poetry continues.

No, the poetry does not continue - thank God! I don't like your behavior but at least you are engaging.

 

[fromderinside]

Why am I bothering? One can represent a resister with a pencil mark. One cannot represent memory by representing a wave collapsing to a point.

The reason is simple. A pencil mark is a conductor that, if one flowed electrons through it, it would use energy (be a resister). One cannot represent memory as a wave collapse because memory is a demonstrated progressive phenomena where the past has left traces whereas a wave collapse is a hypothetical theoretical mechanism used to reconcile that which is too small to measure in terms of wave and particle.

As I pointed out earlier if one's theory eliminates time as a physical dimension such as radioactive decay reduces to this then that just the same as it does in macro space. It is at energy level x then it is at energy level level y. So even when it comes to suitable theory you have an inferior analogy when you try to impose the QM principle of superposition which doesn't exist in macro physics.

Memory can be thought to operate as a physical process which it happens to be. A process link would be B then A. That's how memory works. The fact that memory is not fixed leads to different outcomes on different trials because C, D, E, ... is possible either as input or output.

 

[untermensche]

One thing is clear.

There is no science of free will.

And no science of an unfree will.

There is no science what-so-ever that explains "will".