The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

Then demonstrate that.

"It feels like it must be true" is a very common argument indeed; and it is just about the least compelling argument in history. It is the woeful performance of this epistemology that required us to develop science - we needed to replace this failed path to knowledge with one that actually worked.

You both seem to be making free will about something that has to be magical.

If we agree that we could have chosen differently, then there is no need for this unobservable or woeful concept of free will.

Ironically, being in the science thread, it helps that the only limits to nature is physics. This easily works in science because of QM.

You didnt respond to my post at all...

I give you another chance; what in "free will" is actually observed?

The main ingredients in what you attribute as "free will" is never really observed:

1) "i could have chosen otherwise".
2) "there is no necessary causual condition for my choice"
3) 'there is a "point of decision"'

These are all assumptions, not observations.

My whole argument is an argument that attempts to scientifically leave open the possibility of free will. I have never said that the evidence concludes free will, but it does seem leave it very much a possibility.

 

[Juma]

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

Then demonstrate that.

"It feels like it must be true" is a very common argument indeed; and it is just about the least compelling argument in history. It is the woeful performance of this epistemology that required us to develop science - we needed to replace this failed path to knowledge with one that actually worked.

You both seem to be making free will about something that has to be magical.

If we agree that we could have chosen differently, then there is no need for this unobservable or woeful concept of free will.

Ironically, being in the science thread, it helps that the only limits to nature is physics. This easily works in science because of QM.

You didnt respond to my post at all...

I give you another chance; what in "free will" is actually observed?

The main ingredients in what you attribute as "free will" is never really observed:

1) "i could have chosen otherwise".
2) "there is no necessary causual condition for my choice"
3) 'there is a "point of decision"'

These are all assumptions, not observations.

My whole argument is an argument that attempts to scientifically leave open the possibility of free will. I have never said that the evidence concludes free will, but it does seem leave it very much a possibility.

You dont get it.
The possibility of what?
It isnt even observed so why wasting so much time on trying to find an explanation/possible mechanism?

The only thing you are observing is that you are active.

 

[ryan]

You dont get it.
The possibility of what?
It isnt even observed so why wasting so much time on trying to find an explanation/possible mechanism?

The only thing you are observing is that you are active.

When there is such a strong intuition about X, it is only natural to try to find a scientific explanation. So far there are hints that this strong intuition that many people have might be true.

 

[DBT]

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.

I'm not denying that quantum particles are a part of the model. I'd be surprised if they were not.

Nevertheless, you need to consider the observable fact that behaviour is specific to the architecture and condition of a brain, cats, dogs, mice, fish, people, regardless of the fact that all brains are essentially composed of the same matter/energy. Even functioning o the same principles of central nervous system gathering information which is processed by the brain according to its architecture, and not its quantum substrata...which is common to all things and does not itself gather and process information. That takes a functional brain. That is what you continue to slide around.

 

[Juma]

You dont get it.
The possibility of what?
It isnt even observed so why wasting so much time on trying to find an explanation/possible mechanism?

The only thing you are observing is that you are active.

When there is such a strong intuition about X, it is only natural to try to find a scientific explanation.

No. First you must show that the phenomen really exist. People have strong intuition in shit like telekinesi, mindreading, homeopathy etc

But i dare say that we do not have a strong intuition in what you call "free will". We doesnt feel like we "could have chosen otherwise under the exact same situation" because we gave no intuitionof wgat that would be like. We can only think of how it would be if that situation occured again and how we would act then, which us a completely new situation since we have 1) the memory of the situation 2) knowledge of the outcome of our begavior and 3) thought about if we would have acted differently.

So. No, the "intuition" isnt a intuition, it is a thought out opinion after we have pondered the matter philosophically.

 

[ryan]

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.

I'm not denying that quantum particles are a part of the model. I'd be surprised if they were not.

Nevertheless, you need to consider the observable fact that behaviour is specific to the architecture and condition of a brain, cats, dogs, mice, fish, people, regardless of the fact that all brains are essentially composed of the same matter/energy. Even functioning o the same principles of central nervous system gathering information which is processed by the brain according to its architecture, and not its quantum substrata...which is common to all things and does not itself gather and process information. That takes a functional brain. That is what you continue to slide around.

Please read these two sentences, "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 .

 

[ryan]

When there is such a strong intuition about X, it is only natural to try to find a scientific explanation.

No. First you must show that the phenomen really exist. People have strong intuition in shit like telekinesi, mindreading, homeopathy etc

So I have to show that free will exists before I can hypothesize about it? That's ridiculous.

But i dare say that we do not have a strong intuition in what you call "free will". We doesnt feel like we "could have chosen otherwise under the exact same situation" because we gave no intuitionof wgat that would be like. We can only think of how it would be if that situation occured again and how we would act then, which us a completely new situation since we have 1) the memory of the situation 2) knowledge of the outcome of our begavior and 3) thought about if we would have acted differently.

So. No, the "intuition" isnt a intuition, it is a thought out opinion after we have pondered the matter philosophically.

Using the term loosely, many people have or had an intuition at some point in their lives that they had free will.

 

[DBT]

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.

I'm not denying that quantum particles are a part of the model. I'd be surprised if they were not.

Nevertheless, you need to consider the observable fact that behaviour is specific to the architecture and condition of a brain, cats, dogs, mice, fish, people, regardless of the fact that all brains are essentially composed of the same matter/energy. Even functioning o the same principles of central nervous system gathering information which is processed by the brain according to its architecture, and not its quantum substrata...which is common to all things and does not itself gather and process information. That takes a functional brain. That is what you continue to slide around.

Please read these two sentences, "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 .

It's possible, but at this point it's speculation. Even assuming that it is so, it does not change what I said in the least. All brains function on essentially the same principles, yet the the behaviour they produce is specific to the neural architecture of the brain and not that quantum states may be a part of the physics and common to all brains as information processors.

That is the point you continue to slide around.

 

[Juma]

So I have to show that free will exists before I can hypothesize about it? That's ridiculous.

No, it is how it is done. No use to explain how transparent pigs works until there is a transparent pig to explain.

Using the term loosely, many people have or had an intuition at some point in their lives that they had free will.

But we mustnt use the term loosely.

 

[untermensche]

You dont get it.
The possibility of what?
It isnt even observed so why wasting so much time on trying to find an explanation/possible mechanism?

The only thing you are observing is that you are active.

When there is such a strong intuition about X, it is only natural to try to find a scientific explanation. So far there are hints that this strong intuition that many people have might be true.

There is no intuition that leads one to think QM has anything to do with the world. It is in many ways counter-intuitive.

We were forced to accept QM based on observation despite our intuitions.

Saying one has intuitions is to say they have nothing.

 

[Malintent]

When there is such a strong intuition about X, it is only natural to try to find a scientific explanation.

No. First you must show that the phenomen really exist. People have strong intuition in shit like telekinesi, mindreading, homeopathy etc

But i dare say that we do not have a strong intuition in what you call "free will". We doesnt feel like we "could have chosen otherwise under the exact same situation" because we gave no intuitionof wgat that would be like. We can only think of how it would be if that situation occured again and how we would act then, which us a completely new situation since we have 1) the memory of the situation 2) knowledge of the outcome of our begavior and 3) thought about if we would have acted differently.

So. No, the "intuition" isnt a intuition, it is a thought out opinion after we have pondered the matter philosophically.

The simple fact that most people seem to think they are so special that there is some super powerful entity that has some "plan" for them, and the ability to make it happen despite any action taken, makes it crystal clear to me that most people do NOT have any kind of intuition that Free Will is a thing... or at least that if free will IS a thing, then it is highly limited and delved out in tiny, insignificant, pieces.
You choose what to eat for breakfast as free as the resources available to you allow (not even free will there - just the illusion), but if "The Plan" for you is to become a Crack Dealer, so that you happen to be standing on 1st and Park at just the right time to be the victim of a shooting, so that the child that was chosen to become the next, next President of the United States isn't shot by the guy who's Plan was to be arrested and put in jail so that some OTHER guy in jail would be influenced by the shooter to turn to Jesus for redemption... Then no matter what "free" choices you make, it ain't going to change shit.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, it is how it is done. No use to explain how transparent pigs works until there is a transparent pig to explain.

But that is the question ryan is asking as far as I can determine. Is there such a thing as free will (is there such a thing as transparent pigs). It would seem to me the same question as is there such a thing as Susquatch - without actually capturing one, those asserting that there is can only point to evidence and possibility.

However, for "free will" I would start with a specific definition of what exactly is being asserted. just as Susquatch has been well defined so that if one were ever actually seen or captured the question would be settled. With the "free will" argument, even if an instance is identified, the question isn't answered because the detractors will dismiss it because what was being searched for was not defined at the beginning.

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if anyone taking part in free will debates has ever considered that if you can discuss the topic for months and not come to a resolution that the topic is unresolvable and whatever your belief about it is subjective and arbitrary.

 

[ryan]

I'm not denying that quantum particles are a part of the model. I'd be surprised if they were not.

Nevertheless, you need to consider the observable fact that behaviour is specific to the architecture and condition of a brain, cats, dogs, mice, fish, people, regardless of the fact that all brains are essentially composed of the same matter/energy. Even functioning o the same principles of central nervous system gathering information which is processed by the brain according to its architecture, and not its quantum substrata...which is common to all things and does not itself gather and process information. That takes a functional brain. That is what you continue to slide around.

Please read these two sentences, "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 .

It's possible, but at this point it's speculation. Even assuming that it is so, it does not change what I said in the least. All brains function on essentially the same principles, yet the the behaviour they produce is specific to the neural architecture of the brain and not that quantum states may be a part of the physics and common to all brains as information processors.

That is the point you continue to slide around.

Yes, but the important thing here is how the information is being processed, not its architecture. The paper says,

"... thereby enhancing, and quantum-entangling, postsynaptic neuron excitability and activity.".

This means that quantum entanglement may be influencing neuron activity.

 

[DBT]

Yes, but the important thing here is how the information is being processed, not its architecture. The paper says,

"... thereby enhancing, and quantum-entangling, postsynaptic neuron excitability and activity.".

This means that quantum entanglement may be influencing neuron activity.

Which does not happen without architecture....and is common to all brains, yet the brains of different species produce behaviour specific to a species, as I've repeatedly pointed out but is still being skirted.

 

[ryan]

No, it is how it is done. No use to explain how transparent pigs works until there is a transparent pig to explain.

But that is the question ryan is asking as far as I can determine. Is there such a thing as free will (is there such a thing as transparent pigs). It would seem to me the same question as is there such a thing as Susquatch - without actually capturing one, those asserting that there is can only point to evidence and possibility.

However, for "free will" I would start with a specific definition of what exactly is being asserted. just as Susquatch has been well defined so that if one were ever actually seen or captured the question would be settled. With the "free will" argument, even if an instance is identified, the question isn't answered because the detractors will dismiss it because what was being searched for was not defined at the beginning.

I have already mentioned numerous times what definition DBT and I are using. If you want to ask, ask. If not then stop wasting your time with this passive aggressive B.S.

 

[Juma]

No, it is how it is done. No use to explain how transparent pigs works until there is a transparent pig to explain.

But that is the question ryan is asking as far as I can determine. Is there such a thing as free will (is there such a thing as transparent pigs). It would seem to me the same question as is there such a thing as Susquatch - without actually capturing one, those asserting that there is can only point to evidence and possibility.

However, for "free will" I would start with a specific definition of what exactly is being asserted. just as Susquatch has been well defined so that if one were ever actually seen or captured the question would be settled. With the "free will" argument, even if an instance is identified, the question isn't answered because the detractors will dismiss it because what was being searched for was not defined at the beginning.

Susquatch is just a different species. New species is found every day. Interesting but not even very remarkable.
Free will as ryan define is, on the other hand, a logical contradiction.

 

[Juma]

I wonder if anyone taking part in free will debates has ever considered that if you can discuss the topic for months and not come to a resolution that the topic is unresolvable and whatever your belief about it is subjective and arbitrary.

It isnt. It is in fact rather simple.the problem is that som really dont want to follow the logic of the argument.

 

[ryan]

I wonder if anyone taking part in free will debates has ever considered that if you can discuss the topic for months and not come to a resolution that the topic is unresolvable and whatever your belief about it is subjective and arbitrary.

Some things take years to be resolved.

 

[rousseau]

What does it even mean to have 'free will' as a human being, or to try and describe our experience as a human being?

Regardless of how we define ourselves, we're the same 'living' object in the universe having an experience that is fundamental to what we are. I don't see a need to get angsty about what we call that.