The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

There is a dark cloud hanging over this forum, and it's spreading like a bad fart.

A dark cloud of people not agreeing with you?

That's a dreadful shame.

Either there is something wrong with them, or your arguments are not as compelling as you think they are. Therefore there must be something wrong with them. Amirite?

First you fall victim to the cloud, then our sweet untermensche.

 

[bilby]

A dark cloud of people not agreeing with you?

That's a dreadful shame.

Either there is something wrong with them, or your arguments are not as compelling as you think they are. Therefore there must be something wrong with them. Amirite?

First you fall victim to the cloud, then our sweet untermensche.

untermensche is one of the two people I have on ignore, so I don't know what contribution he has made to this thread, and nor do I care.

However if he doesn't agree with your poorly argued but clearly fervently held belief that there is such a thing as 'free will', and that it can somehow be enabled by the magic word 'quantum', which seems to mean 'get out of logic free', then it seems we actually agree on something for a change.

 

[fast]

First you fall victim to the cloud, then our sweet untermensche.

untermensche is one of the two people I have on ignore, so I don't know what contribution he has made to this thread, and nor do I care.

However if he doesn't agree with your poorly argued but clearly fervently held belief that there is such a thing as 'free will', and that it can somehow be enabled by the magic word 'quantum', which seems to mean 'get out of logic free', then it seems we actually agree on something for a change.

What do you mean by, "a thing?" There is no material thing called free will, but people do (and very often) act of their own free will, so although there may be no actual thing we can touch called free will, it is something.

 

[untermensche]

So you ask questions and then run away from them as Fast as possible?

I am not sure I am connecting with you. Are you talking about the scientific/material consciousness or the immaterial consciousness?

Okay.

Untermensche, why would you reply to my post the way that you did.

I love discussing the idea of immaterial, but that is a huge discussion for another thread. I am interested in a response that is more aligned with my post.

Your thinking is so muddled I have to focus on one thing at a time.

Straightening out this issue puts light on some of the other muddled thinking in your post.

Muddled thinking like this:

Why is mental experience an emergent property of matter and not the other way around? As far as I know, there is no convincing argument why one should arise from the other.

There is absolutely convincing evidence that humans are here as a result of evolution. To imagine they are here for any other reason violates parsimony, it requires massive additions behind the scene that are invisible, and is therefore irrational.

Therefore organism precedes consciousness.

This is not a question anymore.

What happened to you? You are like maybe the worst one now.

Excuse me for actually thinking you would defend the things you say.

 

[bilby]

untermensche is one of the two people I have on ignore, so I don't know what contribution he has made to this thread, and nor do I care.

However if he doesn't agree with your poorly argued but clearly fervently held belief that there is such a thing as 'free will', and that it can somehow be enabled by the magic word 'quantum', which seems to mean 'get out of logic free', then it seems we actually agree on something for a change.

What do you mean by, "a thing?" There is no material thing called free will, but people do (and very often) act of their own free will, so although there may be no actual thing we can touch called free will, it is something.

There is no way for there to be any such thing as free will that causes people to choose how to act; It's the other way about. Choosing a course of action causes the experience we call 'free will'; it is purely post-hoc.

All influences on decision making are either deterministic, and driven by the current state of the brain and its inputs; or they are random/pseudo-random/chaotic. Neither randomness nor determinism is able to be influenced by anything other than further randomness or determinism.

Our choices are, to some extent, chaotic - we cannot predict exactly what they will be until they have been made, any more than we can predict the weather next month - but they are not caused by our will. Our will is what we call the decisions AFTER they have been made. The word 'free' simply doesn't apply - except in the wider sense that if duress or physical ability is one of the inputs, we declare our decision 'unfree', even though it was determined based on inputs. I cannot freely choose to walk out of a locked prison cell. But if the door is open, I turn left, and then declare that 'choice' to be 'willed'; I don't will myself to go left, and then choose to go left based on that 'will'. How could I? What process tells the will which choice is better? a meta-will? With a meta-meta-will that chooses what to will our meta-will to will us to choose?

The idea of will is basically dualistic. There is NOT a soul, driving the brain, but separate from it. Calling it 'will' doesn't make it any less impossible for such a thing to exist.

Your cart is going to get worn out from dragging that team of horses around; perhaps you should put them the other way about.

 

[ryan]

First you fall victim to the cloud, then our sweet untermensche.

untermensche is one of the two people I have on ignore, so I don't know what contribution he has made to this thread, and nor do I care.

However if he doesn't agree with your poorly argued but clearly fervently held belief that there is such a thing as 'free will', and that it can somehow be enabled by the magic word 'quantum', which seems to mean 'get out of logic free', then it seems we actually agree on something for a change.

I meant that you both are becoming more and more belligerent.

 

[fast]

There is no way for there to be any such thing as free will that causes people to choose how to act;

I agree. Free will doesn't have such a causal effect. What I'm saying is that people have free will, well, at least when they do. Did you see my earlier post in the thread?

 

[bilby]

untermensche is one of the two people I have on ignore, so I don't know what contribution he has made to this thread, and nor do I care.

However if he doesn't agree with your poorly argued but clearly fervently held belief that there is such a thing as 'free will', and that it can somehow be enabled by the magic word 'quantum', which seems to mean 'get out of logic free', then it seems we actually agree on something for a change.

I meant that you both are becoming more and more belligerent.

The word you are looking for is 'frustrated'. When someone has the logical and/or factual flaws in their position pointed out to them, but then goes on repeating the flawed arguments, what else would you expect? The next stage is belligerence, and that leads to the ignore list, because I respect the ToU and have no desire to be banned - but I really don't put people on ignore, unless they are so far gone as to make me actually belligerent - I value opinions that contradict my own, as a valuable opportunity to test (and adjust) my position. There are, at this point in time, only two active members here whose posts I believe do my mental well-being more harm than good.

We have had this meta-discussion before; I am attacking your ideas, not your person, and if I become sufficiently frustrated as to attack you personally, then I would expect you (or someone else) to report me to the moderators, and if they uphold the complaint, I would either tone down my rhetoric, or (if unable to restrain myself) use the ignore list to remove the stimulus.

I am not, however, required to resile from attacking your poor arguments just because you feel as though my attacks on them are attacks on your person - I need only do that if I actually cross the line into personal attacks. Ideas that cannot withstand the sternest of criticism, do not deserve to persist. Attacking bad ideas is not a failing.

 

[ryan]

I meant that you both are becoming more and more belligerent.

The word you are looking for is 'frustrated'. When someone has the logical and/or factual flaws in their position pointed out to them, but then goes on repeating the flawed arguments, what else would you expect? The next stage is belligerence, and that leads to the ignore list, because I respect the ToU and have no desire to be banned - but I really don't put people on ignore, unless they are so far gone as to make me actually belligerent - I value opinions that contradict my own, as a valuable opportunity to test (and adjust) my position. There are, at this point in time, only two active members here whose posts I believe do my mental well-being more harm than good.

We have had this meta-discussion before; I am attacking your ideas, not your person, and if I become sufficiently frustrated as to attack you personally, then I would expect you (or someone else) to report me to the moderators, and if they uphold the complaint, I would either tone down my rhetoric, or (if unable to restrain myself) use the ignore list to remove the stimulus.

I am not, however, required to resile from attacking your poor arguments just because you feel as though my attacks on them are attacks on your person - I need only do that if I actually cross the line into personal attacks. Ideas that cannot withstand the sternest of criticism, do not deserve to persist. Attacking bad ideas is not a failing.

You didn't always act this way. That's why I still hold hope that you will go back to how you used to be. Anyways, I don't think there are moderators here anymore.

 

[DBT]

Nope, nothing to do with a ''Newtonian world' and all to do with the physical architecture of the brain and its function, which includes QM as the underlying scaffolding of all macro scale systems, but not necessarily the role and function of a mechanism. A car engine, for example, cannot weigh options because that is not its role/function according to its architecture...yet the QM scaffolding is common to both car engine and human brain.

Yes, but how relevant is QM in the brain, is the question. We know QM does not play a significant role in an engine because we have a thorough understanding of an engine. But we do not have a complete understanding of the decision making process.

Too many points to deal with in the little time I have....but the gist of your post still ignores the fact that macro scale architecture shapes/ forms/governs/determines function and output. In relation to brains, the brain of a fish cannot produce human behaviour because it is adapted to a different environment, it is smaller, wired differently and its senses/central nervous system provides a different experience of the world to that of a human brain....so, in a nutshell, all brains have the same quantum substructure/scaffolding but it is the neural hardware of the brain that shapes and forms its experience of the macro world. So quantum won't help you establish an argument for free will.

 

[ryan]

Yes, but how relevant is QM in the brain, is the question. We know QM does not play a significant role in an engine because we have a thorough understanding of an engine. But we do not have a complete understanding of the decision making process.

Too many points to deal with in the little time I have....but the gist of your post still ignores the fact that macro scale architecture shapes/ forms/governs/determines function and output. In relation to brains, the brain of a fish cannot produce human behaviour because it is adapted to a different environment, it is smaller, wired differently and its senses/central nervous system provides a different experience of the world to that of a human brain....so, in a nutshell, all brains have the same quantum substructure/scaffolding but it is the neural hardware of the brain that shapes and forms its experience of the macro world. So quantum won't help you establish an argument for free will.

Then just make sure you read this quote if not the paper itself, "A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain." ( from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ).

 

[DBT]

Then just make sure you read this quote if not the paper itself, "A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain." ( from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ).

None of that appears to support free will, for the given reasons. If you think it does, as you obviously do, you need to explain how it works, but first consider the the structure of the brain, what is being processes, how it's being processed and for what purpose and result its behavioural output.

 

[ryan]

Then just make sure you read this quote if not the paper itself, "A simple example with two neurons illustrating this critical link between nuclear spin entanglement
and neuron firing rates is depicted in Fig. 3d. Compound and more elaborate processes involving
multiple Posner molecules and multiple neurons are possible, and might enable complex nuclear-spin
quantum processing in the brain." ( from https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/users/mpaf/174.pdf ).

None of that appears to support free will, for the given reasons. If you think it does, as you obviously do, you need to explain how it works, but first consider the the structure of the brain, what is being processes, how it's being processed and for what purpose and result its behavioural output.

It is only suppose to support my argument that QM might be part of the decision making process.

The other posts and quotes were suppose to show that current cognitive theories that you keep mentioning do not explain certain observations of cognitive processes such as the decision making process. There is a need for much better theory. QM theories claim to explain some of the mysteries.

The freedom is the probabilistic mechanics that QM allows.

 

[DBT]

None of that appears to support free will, for the given reasons. If you think it does, as you obviously do, you need to explain how it works, but first consider the the structure of the brain, what is being processes, how it's being processed and for what purpose and result its behavioural output.

It is only suppose to support my argument that QM might be part of the decision making process.

The other posts and quotes were suppose to show that current cognitive theories that you keep mentioning do not explain certain observations of cognitive processes such as the decision making process. There is a need for much better theory. QM theories claim to explain some of the mysteries.

The freedom is the probabilistic mechanics that QM allows.

Decision making is related to definite states, to buy a house or not buy a house, to get married or not get married, to study to be an engineer instead of a lawyer, to learn a trade instead of a profession, and so on.....which has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum uncertainty, wave collapse or micro tubule function. As I've already pointed out, all brains, the brains of cats, dogs, mice, pigeons, fish, etc, etc, etc, have essentially the same quantum substrata yet produce a range of behaviours that are specific to the architecture of the brain in question and not its quantum substrata.
Micro tubules, etc, no doubt play a role as facilitators of the process, but not as a means for 'free will' (whatever that is supposed to mean) decisions.

 

[untermensche]

It is only suppose to support my argument that QM might be part of the decision making process.

You don't have an argument.

You have an empty speculation without any kind of mechanism.

Which is why I repeat, all of this is a complete waste of time without a scientific explanation of consciousness.

Which I say is theoretically possible but may be beyond human capacities.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

 

[untermensche]

The drivers of behaviour - hunger, thirst, mating, etc, providing the impetus, the will, the drive to fulfill these needs and wants. There is no separating drive/volition from will. Just different words referring to aspects of the same phenomena.

Tautology that explains nothing and goes nowhere.

Yes, animals have a drive to meet the needs for food.

But that in no way explains what a "drive" is in terms of the working of a brain.

 

[fast]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

That I will do something is one thing, and that I must do something is quite another. While it's true that if I must do something, then I will do what I must do, but the inverse isn't true, even if everything I will do is known in advance. Of all the things I will do are not therefore things I must do just because God knows everything I will do.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

That I will do something is one thing, and that I must do something is quite another. While it's true that if I must do something, then I will do what I must do, but the inverse isn't true, even if everything I will do is known in advance. Of all the things I will do are not therefore things I must do just because God knows everything I will do.

Hey, I'm not getting into the argument. I just think it is funny.

The debate back in the middle ages was silly but they, at least, understood and agreed to the boundary conditions. Today's argument is even sillier because no one knows or agrees on how humans make decisions but will assert their opinion on humanity's thought processes as though they are scientific fact.

But then I guess you are saying that you are on the free will side of that few hundred years of philosophical debate back in the middle ages.

 

[ryan]

It is only suppose to support my argument that QM might be part of the decision making process.

The other posts and quotes were suppose to show that current cognitive theories that you keep mentioning do not explain certain observations of cognitive processes such as the decision making process. There is a need for much better theory. QM theories claim to explain some of the mysteries.

The freedom is the probabilistic mechanics that QM allows.

Decision making is related to definite states, to buy a house or not buy a house, to get married or not get married, to study to be an engineer instead of a lawyer, to learn a trade instead of a profession, and so on.....which has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum uncertainty, wave collapse or micro tubule function.

Please read the bold part of:

In this introduction, we focus on two quantum principles as examples to show why quantum cognition is an appealing new theoretical direction for psychology: complementarity, which suggests that some psychological measures have to be made sequentially and that the context generated by the first measure can influence responses to the next one, producing measurement order effects, and superposition, which suggests that some psychological states cannot be defined with respect to definite values but, instead, that all possible values within the superposition have some potential for being expressed.

And then read, "Furthermore, we will eventually need to establish biophysical theory
of quantum cognition and decision (at the essentialistic stage). Whether the theory at this
stage requires quantum physics (similar to quantum biophysics of photosynthesis) or not
is an open question at present.".

I will reference this properly because I was able to access this through my university but only as a student.

Reference:

Taiki Takahashi. Topics in Cognitive Science: Toward a Physical Theory of Quantum Cognition. (2013). Cognitive Science Society; Department of Behavioral Science, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences; Hokkaido University [Internet]. [cited May 17, 2016]. p 106. Available from https://www.library.ualberta.ca/ .

As I've already pointed out, all brains, the brains of cats, dogs, mice, pigeons, fish, etc, etc, etc, have essentially the same quantum substrata yet produce a range of behaviours that are specific to the architecture of the brain in question and not its quantum substrata.
Micro tubules, etc, no doubt play a role as facilitators of the process, but not as a means for 'free will' (whatever that is supposed to mean) decisions.

They don't know this yet. But it should seem very realistic that QM is behind this new model.