The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Treedbear]

Doesnt realize that "could have chosen otherwise" is a useless concept: priceless.

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.

I have read the entire thread (just saying ). First, defining free will as "to have the ability to have chosen otherwise" makes it sound like an ability to alter the past rather than to make a choice in the present. You should say it's "to have the ability to make an non-deterministic choice", period. That's much easier. We can easily do so on a pseudo-random basis by leaving it up to the subconscious. A "flip decision". But pseudo-random decisions aren't truly random and aren't non-deterministic. Nevertheless there can be a conscious decision to choose to make one on this basis. Would it still be "my" decision? If I take ownership of the process in my brain that caused it I would say that it was indeed my decision.

Now what if I had access to a true random choice generator. You can imagine a desktop model based on the quantum probability of radioactive decay. If I consciously based my decision on such a mechanism would it be a case of free will? What if the brain has some circuits that instantiate such a device and the deterministic macro processes can choose to make a decision based on that process. Can I say it was non-determined and can I claim to own that decision? How about if these circuits evolved along with the brain, intelligence and consciousness? In short: everything that many consider to be what makes us human. Or else what if the device was part of a larger AI computer program. Would the computer then have instant free will?

I don't put much stock in the notion of free will. It seems like just another example of pushing an abstract concept beyond its usefulness. But I put a lot of faith in the concept of evolution and the important role of randomness in the creative process. And I think this plays an important role not only in the evolution of the brain but as the basis for how it functions. Ideas evolve. Nature evolves.

 

[bilby]

Sorry, but a decision can EITHER be random; OR it can be a choice.

The cat in Schrodinger's famous experiment may be in a superimposed state until observed; but which state it is observed to be in when the lid is finally opened is RANDOM. there is no CHOICE involved.

All of this talk of quantum effects is pointless - because in no way do these effects introduce choice. If free will is the ability to have CHOSEN otherwise, then showing that we have the ability to have RANDOMLY decided otherwise has exactly ZERO impact on the question - it is a complete red herring.

Randomness is the exact OPPOSITE of choice.

 

[OLDMAN]

Free will is a beautiful illusion, that helps with our delusion of being in control. When of course the opposite is true.

 

[ryan]

Sorry, but a decision can EITHER be random; OR it can be a choice.

The cat in Schrodinger's famous experiment may be in a superimposed state until observed; but which state it is observed to be in when the lid is finally opened is RANDOM. there is no CHOICE involved.

All of this talk of quantum effects is pointless - because in no way do these effects introduce choice. If free will is the ability to have CHOSEN otherwise, then showing that we have the ability to have RANDOMLY decided otherwise has exactly ZERO impact on the question - it is a complete red herring.

Randomness is the exact OPPOSITE of choice.

Why can a choice be determined but not random?

As far as the randomness/freedom goes, think of it more like an unrestricted outcome rather than only one possible outcome.

 

[bilby]

Sorry, but a decision can EITHER be random; OR it can be a choice.

The cat in Schrodinger's famous experiment may be in a superimposed state until observed; but which state it is observed to be in when the lid is finally opened is RANDOM. there is no CHOICE involved.

All of this talk of quantum effects is pointless - because in no way do these effects introduce choice. If free will is the ability to have CHOSEN otherwise, then showing that we have the ability to have RANDOMLY decided otherwise has exactly ZERO impact on the question - it is a complete red herring.

Randomness is the exact OPPOSITE of choice.

Why can a choice be determined but not random?

Because that's what the word CHOICE implies.

I can choose whether or not to have a beer - weighing up all the various factors: How thirsty am I; How much does it cost; Do I have enough money in my pocket; Will I need to drive later; Is the barmaid pretty; Was the last beer I was served here flat; Would I rather drink coffee; etc; etc - OR I can toss a coin, and accept the random result of the coin flip, INSTEAD of making a choice.

As far as the randomness/freedom goes, think of it more like an unrestricted outcome rather than only one possible outcome.

No. Either there is a choice - I weigh up various factors; Or there is a decision imposed upon me - the coins says tails, so I must go home.

A choice implies that there is a chooser. My choice implies that the chooser is ME. If a choice is the result of a coin toss or other random event, then it isn't MY choice at all - the coin can make the choice, OR I can - but not both.

Choice is under control. Randomness is, by definition, uncontrolled - it is the OPPOSITE of choice.

 

[ryan]

Why can a choice be determined but not random?

Because that's what the word CHOICE implies.

I can choose whether or not to have a beer - weighing up all the various factors: How thirsty am I; How much does it cost; Do I have enough money in my pocket; Will I need to drive later; Is the barmaid pretty; Was the last beer I was served here flat; Would I rather drink coffee; etc; etc - OR I can toss a coin, and accept the random result of the coin flip, INSTEAD of making a choice.

Take it up with whoever is in charge of nomenclature because as of now quantum cognition scientists are calling these superpositioned outcomes choices. Don't kill the messenger.

As far as the randomness/freedom goes, think of it more like an unrestricted outcome rather than only one possible outcome.

No. Either there is a choice - I weigh up various factors; Or there is a decision imposed upon me - the coins says tails, so I must go home.

A choice implies that there is a chooser. My choice implies that the chooser is ME. If a choice is the result of a coin toss or other random event, then it isn't MY choice at all - the coin can make the choice, OR I can - but not both.

All I am saying is that the choice that was made could have been different. The choice has "freedom" to be any choice of a set of infinite possibilities or a finite number of possibilities.

Choice is under control.

You can't choose to do something other than what you are determined to do in CM either.

Randomness is, by definition, uncontrolled - it is the OPPOSITE of choice.

By "control", don't you really mean "classical mechanics"? That's the only difference between your "control" and "uncontrolled" that I can see.


You can think of it as the agent's true desire since, after all, we are the randomness.

 

[Juma]

Because that's what the word CHOICE implies.

I can choose whether or not to have a beer - weighing up all the various factors: How thirsty am I; How much does it cost; Do I have enough money in my pocket; Will I need to drive later; Is the barmaid pretty; Was the last beer I was served here flat; Would I rather drink coffee; etc; etc - OR I can toss a coin, and accept the random result of the coin flip, INSTEAD of making a choice.

Take it up with whoever is in charge of nomenclature because as of now quantum cognition scientists are calling these superpositioned outcomes choices. Don't kill the messenger.

As far as the randomness/freedom goes, think of it more like an unrestricted outcome rather than only one possible outcome.

No. Either there is a choice - I weigh up various factors; Or there is a decision imposed upon me - the coins says tails, so I must go home.

A choice implies that there is a chooser. My choice implies that the chooser is ME. If a choice is the result of a coin toss or other random event, then it isn't MY choice at all - the coin can make the choice, OR I can - but not both.

All I am saying is that the choice that was made could have been different. The choice has "freedom" to be any choice of a set of infinite possibilities or a finite number of possibilities.

Choice is under control.

You can't choose to do something other than what you are determined to do in CM either.

Randomness is, by definition, uncontrolled - it is the OPPOSITE of choice.

By "control", don't you really mean "classical mechanics"? That's the only difference between your "control" and "uncontrolled" that I can see.


You can think of it as the agent's true desire since, after all, we are the randomness.

Then there is no free will. Just randomness

 

[fromderinside]

Really" You're right back to possibility and you're calling those who suggest choice is other than choice scientists, your dredged up cognitive Quantum scientists who obviously didn't take account of science is determinism based.. Get a grip.

Quantum behavior doesn't percolate up 30 of levels of physical behavior cross from the QM world into the relativity world without bringing rules necessary to explain the quantum world. On top of that there is a very adequate theory of the big world, call it relativity, that works and is not violated in the big, marco, relative world. Among the elements in that world is the notion of determinism which is universally found, never violated. We depend on it to do science which you would overthrow on a wish from your fantasy scientists.

So let's presume your fantasy quantum cognition scientists don't work in their dream of a quantum mind with science then. OK? It must be OK if science is to be preserved.

 

[DBT]

Not everyone uses that definition.

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

Nevertheless, there are other definitions and the subject about free will. You might be better of dropping 'could have chosen differently' and try something else. If you could have chosen differently, you would have chosen not to make an error that you realise you made one second after.

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.

Superposition relates to fundamental particles, not decisions. It's the objects and events of the external macro world that you must respond to and that is shaped by the situation you find yourself in and your past experience with similar situations, pattern recognition enabled by memory function.

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.

Schrodinger's cat is not meant to be real macro scale cat, but a metaphor for quantum particles. But maybe you can be in all places at once, eh, ryan?

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

The hypothesis does not mean what you think it means. You are interpreting what you read in a way that you feel supports your belief about free will.

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

I've explained the significance of total memory loss: the complete destruction of the ability of the brain to make decisions. This is a failure of dendrites and synapses, neural tangles, not superposition.

Even if it is granted that all decisions exist in superposition, it is still the connections that manifest the decision that is made in the instance it is made, probability wave collapse if you like.

So it is still connectivity and memory function that falsifies your claim for free will.

 

[untermensche]

A free choice is a choice that is not forced.

I make the choice to lift my arm.

Is this forced in some way? How? It is an action taking place in unique present circumstances and not at the direction of anybody else.

How do these circumstances force me to decide to lift my arm?

I'm not claiming they can't but to say that all decisions are forced and therefore "free" choices are impossible a rational theory has to exist to show how some unique circumstance can just force me to decide to lift my arm when lifting it serves no purpose at all.

 

[Malintent]

A free choice is a choice that is not forced.

I make the choice to lift my arm.

Is this forced in some way? How? It is an action taking place in unique present circumstances and not at the direction of anybody else.

How do these circumstances force me to decide to lift my arm?

I'm not claiming they can't but to say that all decisions are forced and therefore "free" choices are impossible a rational theory has to exist to show how some unique circumstance can just force me to decide to lift my arm when lifting it serves no purpose at all.

If you do not lift your arm, the stove that is burning it will continue to cause increasing damage to the limb.. potentially permanent damage that causes you to loose the limb.
Are you free to leave your arm down?

 

[fromderinside]

A free choice is a choice that is not forced.

I make the choice to lift my arm.

Is this forced in some way? How? It is an action taking place in unique present circumstances and not at the direction of anybody else.

How do these circumstances force me to decide to lift my arm?

I'm not claiming they can't but to say that all decisions are forced and therefore "free" choices are impossible a rational theory has to exist to show how some unique circumstance can just force me to decide to lift my arm when lifting it serves no purpose at all.

Yes. You lifted your right arm. Why? Your interpretation of free will is local conscious impression of choice. Since consciousness is an amalgam of patched together awarenesses, those things to which our after the fact review committee records from all those things calling for attention from this input or that, are you sure you choose these things?

 

[ryan]

Then there is no free will. Just randomness

For our purposes, "free" is just another term for undetermined. Like a photon going through a double slit. There is a certain space of possible places that it can end up. As far as we know, it could have ended up at any place in the space on the screen. Just like we may be able to have chosen differently.

 

[ryan]

Really" You're right back to possibility and you're calling those who suggest choice is other than choice scientists, your dredged up cognitive Quantum scientists who obviously didn't take account of science is determinism based.. Get a grip.

Quantum behavior doesn't percolate up 30 of levels of physical behavior cross from the QM world into the relativity world without bringing rules necessary to explain the quantum world. On top of that there is a very adequate theory of the big world, call it relativity, that works and is not violated in the big, marco, relative world. Among the elements in that world is the notion of determinism which is universally found, never violated. We depend on it to do science which you would overthrow on a wish from your fantasy scientists.

So let's presume your fantasy quantum cognition scientists don't work in their dream of a quantum mind with science then. OK? It must be OK if science is to be preserved.

If we observe that A is undetermined, then we know something about it, a property that we can predict. Moreover, there are probability densities using the Schrodinger equation, so we can also predict where something is likely to be.

 

[fromderinside]

Then there is no free will. Just randomness

For our purposes, "free" is just another term for undetermined.

What purposes? Statistics? Electrons passing a grid in a tube do so in an undetermined pattern. We call recording of that thermal, or, shot noise.

So noise is "free" Interesting. Can I go to R. A. Fisher's grave and change his 'Father of statistics' epitaph to 'free'?

 

[untermensche]

A free choice is a choice that is not forced.

I make the choice to lift my arm.

Is this forced in some way? How? It is an action taking place in unique present circumstances and not at the direction of anybody else.

How do these circumstances force me to decide to lift my arm?

I'm not claiming they can't but to say that all decisions are forced and therefore "free" choices are impossible a rational theory has to exist to show how some unique circumstance can just force me to decide to lift my arm when lifting it serves no purpose at all.

If you do not lift your arm, the stove that is burning it will continue to cause increasing damage to the limb.. potentially permanent damage that causes you to loose the limb.
Are you free to leave your arm down?

The reflexes are there too.

But they don't negate willful action somehow. They are some other system to move the limbs.

 

[untermensche]

A free choice is a choice that is not forced.

I make the choice to lift my arm.

Is this forced in some way? How? It is an action taking place in unique present circumstances and not at the direction of anybody else.

How do these circumstances force me to decide to lift my arm?

I'm not claiming they can't but to say that all decisions are forced and therefore "free" choices are impossible a rational theory has to exist to show how some unique circumstance can just force me to decide to lift my arm when lifting it serves no purpose at all.

Yes. You lifted your right arm. Why? Your interpretation of free will is local conscious impression of choice. Since consciousness is an amalgam of patched together awarenesses, those things to which our after the fact review committee records from all those things calling for attention from this input or that, are you sure you choose these things?

Not an impression.

A clear knowledge of making the choice. It is not fuzzy or dreamlike. It is as clear as a thing can be.

I "will" the arm to move.

If things get complex, like playing the piano, then "programs" beyond consciousness may have a part.

And there is no patchwork of awareness. There is a synthesis of awareness at a single point.

The same "I" is aware of all things it is possible to be aware of.

To have awareness you need this "singularity" that is aware. This separation from that it is aware of.

 

[ryan]

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

Nevertheless, there are other definitions and the subject about free will. You might be better of dropping 'could have chosen differently' and try something else. If you could have chosen differently, you would have chosen not to make an error that you realise you made one second after.

I am not saying "can choose differently" because, as you say, it would mean that I can go back in time and choose differently. When I say "... could have chosen differently", the could is in the past tense.

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.

Superposition relates to fundamental particles, not decisions. It's the objects and events of the external macro world that you must respond to and that is shaped by the situation you find yourself in and your past experience with similar situations, pattern recognition enabled by memory function.

That directly opposes their quantum cognition theory. You would have to review their work and point out why it's wrong. Then your review will have to be reviewed.

Please read,

"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." .

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.

Schrodinger's cat is not meant to be real macro scale cat, but a metaphor for quantum particles. But maybe you can be in all places at once, eh, ryan?

Please watch so we never have to discuss this again, https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/10/22/schrodingers-cat/ . from Penn State's SC200 course

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

The hypothesis does not mean what you think it means. You are interpreting what you read in a way that you feel supports your belief about free will.

I can only trust that they are not lying. Please read,

"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

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

I've explained the significance of total memory loss: the complete destruction of the ability of the brain to make decisions. This is a failure of dendrites and synapses, neural tangles, not superposition.

Even if it is granted that all decisions exist in superposition, it is still the connections that manifest the decision that is made in the instance it is made, probability wave collapse if you like.

So it is still connectivity and memory function that falsifies your claim for free will.

Yes, the connectivity defines and limits the possible choices. But the choices, if in a superposition, as far as we know, are free to be A, B, ... We could have chosen otherwise.

 

[ryan]

For our purposes, "free" is just another term for undetermined.

What purposes? Statistics? Electrons passing a grid in a tube do so in an undetermined pattern. We call recording of that thermal, or, shot noise.

So noise is "free" Interesting. Can I go to R. A. Fisher's grave and change his 'Father of statistics' epitaph to 'free'?

Choices that are undetermined seem to mean the same thing as "free" because of the definition of free will I am using is quite broad: could have chosen otherwise.

 

[Juma]

Then there is no free will. Just randomness

For our purposes, "free" is just another term for undetermined. Like a photon going through a double slit. There is a certain space of possible places that it can end up. As far as we know, it could have ended up at any place in the space on the screen. Just like we may be able to have chosen differently.

No. If my action is random it is no willed.