There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Copernicus]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

 

[Subsymbolic]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

I think that was my point - simulated rain will not get a real field wet, simulated thought, on the other hand...

 

[Juma]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

System state?

 

[Juma]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

I think that was my point - simulated rain will not get a real field wet, simulated thought, on the other hand...

If you simulate as you simulate thought (using real things that think for you) then the rain simulation would be using a hose and that would get the real field wet.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Frankly I take your comments about my reading skills as the ad hominem that they are and chuckle to myself.

I'm open to your suggestions for how to express my dismay at reading skills as effectively without hurting your feelings.

You certainly don't have to accept externalism, or indeed understand it, but at least have a go at understanding it before rejecting it on the basis of wikipedia as there's a fair body of evidence that co processing goes on all the time. I could explain but hey...

Investing my time in a time consuming activity would be stupid to do without any good reason and your plug didn't provide one that I could see.

As for Banach Tarski, perhaps you might want to get your head around what irreducible emergence before pronouncing. I'm sure there's a wiki page about it to help you out.

No, there isn't. You're welcome to make one.

More time wasting.
EB

 

[DBT]

My argument is that you might be the conditions/matter.

That's precisely what we are. Yet our conscious entity aspect of matter/energy states and conditions does not have a feedback loop that allows this aspect of matter/energy to regulate its fundamental particles/waves or its higher order architecture or environment.

But if you want to stick with science, QM ends at probabilistic physics because there is no evidence yet for hidden variables or many worlds.

If you want to stick with the science, while local hidden variables have been ruled out, non local variables have not....meanwhile we have at least ten interpretations of QM, some being probabilistic, some not.


The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics

''Scientists don’t always agree with each other. Yes, I know; shocking but true. In cases of collegial disagreement, it’s often fun to quantify the extent of opinion by gathering a collection of experts and taking a poll. Inevitably some killjoy will loudly grumble that “scientific questions aren’t decided by voting!”, but that misses the point. A poll of scientists isn’t meant to decide questions, it’s meant to collect data — mapping out the territory of opinion among people who have spent time and effort thinking carefully about the relevant questions.

There’s been a bit of attention given recently to one such poll, carried out by Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, and Anton Zeilinger at a quantum foundations meeting (see John Preskill at Quantum Frontiers, Swans on Tea). The pollsters asked a variety of questions, many frustratingly vague, which were patiently answered by the 33 participants.

This plot gives the money shot, as they say in Hollywood:

 

[ryan]

As you say yourself: that doesnt say anything about your argument. So why bring it up?

Juma, I was just pointing out that the new QM math model differs from classical probability models used for QM decision-making. You said there wouldn't be much of a difference; clearly there might be.

That response is wrong on so many levels so there is really no way to answer it...
What I say is that the brain isa helluva complex thing and to model ut on a high level it just might be ok to use QM model but that diesnt mean that the brain actually acts using QM. Its is just a model.
At small scales though, atomic scales, we know that QM works, since it does everywhere.
But upon that scale there are numerous hierarchies in the brain that isnt QM at all. An it is these structures that makes your brain work as it does.
Thus, it may be that at the smallest scale the brain have QM parts, but each such part would handle so little informatio...

For us to be a QM pilot wave then all these tiny part be connected and there is absolutely no reason to belifve that they are.
And even if: how would this unified object be able to steer all these part (atoms!).

It is but a silly dream...

We would be a an entire entangled system of memories, predictions and decision making.

"The result would be the presence of entangled Posner's molecules in the cytoplasm of multiple presynaptic neurons, which could then lead to post-synaptic firing that is quantum correlated across these neurons."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5080346/

 

[DBT]

Quantum entanglement is not the mechanism of memory function in the brain.

 

[ryan]

My argument is that you might be the conditions/matter.

That's precisely what we are. Yet our conscious entity aspect of matter/energy states and conditions does not have a feedback loop that allows this aspect of matter/energy to regulate its fundamental particles/waves or its higher order architecture or environment.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztGNznlowic&t=1s start at 1:00 to 3:30 . He talks about exactly what you claim does not exist.

Don't you think that conscious unity problem is nicely solved with entanglement? I have tried to explain this to you before. Since, have you taken a step back to think about just how strange the unity of consciousness would be without a unity of neural processes? The unity of consciousness is objectively staring us in the face as entanglement.

And if you need science to back this panpsychic claim, information integration theory has an actual scientific hypothesis where there is the q-space dimension where the consciousness is unified. Although it does not require QM entanglement, it does argue for the panpsychism that "conscious entanglement" would require. It's so obvious and so natural that we are the particles; therefor, our will and the particle's behavior are the same thing.

But if you want to stick with science, QM ends at probabilistic physics because there is no evidence yet for hidden variables or many worlds.

If you want to stick with the science, while local hidden variables have been ruled out, non local variables have not....meanwhile we have at least ten interpretations of QM, some being probabilistic, some not.


The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics

DBT, you give me possible ways that this free will can't work, but all I need is one way where it can to make free will possible.

 

[DBT]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztGNznlowic&t=1s start at 1:00 to 3:30 . He talks about exactly what you claim does not exist.

I'm not interested in watching videos, sorry.

Don't you think that conscious unity problem is nicely solved with entanglement?

Entanglement does not explain consciousness, nor is it entanglement that acquires information via senses, processing this information in relation to memory function as means to select options based on a set of criteria determined by past experience and learning, which is not possible without a working memory.

Nor can consciousness effect entanglement through an act of will.

It's a dead end. It is brain architecture that determines behavioural output, not entanglement. Quantum effects break down above Compton scale...t

I have tried to explain this to you before. Since, have you taken a step back to think about just how strange the unity of consciousness would be without a unity of neural processes? The unity of consciousness is objectively staring us in the face as entanglement.

The unity of consciousness? Consciousness is a collection of features and attributes, not an indivisible unit or entity. Will is not unified, there being a constant struggle between a hierarchy of desires and fears, needs and wants.

DBT, you give me possible ways that this free will can't work, but all I need is one way where it can to make free will possible.

Why worry about it? We have a brain that is able to acquire information and respond, learn and adapt....what more do you need?

We can't will a better brain, a sharper brain than what we have.

 

[ryan]

I'm not interested in watching videos, sorry.

He explains how the consciousness goes back in time to make adjustments after receiving information, just for 2 mins.

Entanglement does not explain consciousness, nor is it entanglement that acquires information via senses, processing this information in relation to memory function as means to select options based on a set of criteria determined by past experience and learning, which is not possible without a working memory.

Nor can consciousness effect entanglement through an act of will.

The consciousness would be the entanglement and the true QM behavior.

I have tried to explain this to you before. Since, have you taken a step back to think about just how strange the unity of consciousness would be without a unity of neural processes? The unity of consciousness is objectively staring us in the face as entanglement.

The unity of consciousness? Consciousness is a collection of features and attributes, not an indivisible unit or entity. Will is not unified, there being a constant struggle between a hierarchy of desires and fears, needs and wants.

You ignore the binding problem. Read, "how does “something as simple and mechanistic as neural firing” bind, integrate, or unify different stimuli in separate regions of the brain to arrive at the unity of subjective or phenomenal experience" from https://www.womeninapologetics.com/.../01/Consciousness-and-the-Binding-Problem.pdf

DBT, you give me possible ways that this free will can't work, but all I need is one way where it can to make free will possible.

Why worry about it? We have a brain that is able to acquire information and respond, learn and adapt....what more do you need?

We can't will a better brain, a sharper brain than what we have.

I think of all of the useless stuff to learn and discuss, our true nature is one of the most important things to know.

 

[untermensche]

You wonder why people care if they think there is no ability to make a free choice, a choice that is not forced in any way?

If they honestly have the faith that nothing they do is a free choice then why try to convince another person of anything?

That we try and try to convince others of our thoughts is because we have freely chosen them and therefore think they are important and true.

These pretenders in not believing in free will can easily been seen through. They don't really believe it for a second. That is why they care what other people think.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I genuinely can't tell what your argument is, Speakpigeon. Can you please try explaining it again?

So you must have missed somehow the short presentation I provided to Juma in this thread.

Still, here it is again:

But there is something physical.

People are human beings, which all have a physical body, and a human body has a reasonably well-defined physical boundary, which in turn defines a physical inside and a physical outside of this body, the latter being something which is the object of meticulous and detailed studies and research by perfectly respectable scientists.

The upshot of this fact is that whatever happens inside a human body at any given point in time is determined by its physical state at that point. And then, I'm pretty sure all scientists concerned are convinced that whatever a human being does is best explained by the physical state of his body immediately before doing it. That's true because that's true of just about anything physical, save perhaps some weird particles and fundamental things.

And then the difference between a human being and, say, a rock, is that the rock does not have anything like a representation of the world to decide what to do next. It does not have, like humans do, the ability to represent a number of alternative actions, all different, select one among them, perform the one he will have selected, and perform this action in a way pretty close to the one imagined initially. We definitely do that.

We even make computers perform a vastly simplified but nonetheless very effective version of what we do.

As I see it, that's essentially what people mean by free will and we all have that.

This is also independent of the precise nature of the world we live in, whether deterministic or not.

To be fair, I have to say that perhaps this view is in fact wrong. For example, maybe what we do is in fact decided by some almighty god. However, the view I have outlined is the one most people believe is true, including most scientists, including people who repeat 'free will doesn't exist' from sunrise to sunset.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you want to know, I'm pretty sure I broadly understand the principle of the Banach Tarski paradox. I did two years of maths at university and I liked topology best so I'm intuitive enough about that sort of things. That's also why I understand it has no import for the physical world as we understand it so far.

I'm not intending to be difficult, just making an observation. I did three years of physics at university, and I liked modern physics best. I don't make any claims to be intuitive enough about dark matter or about the details of quantum mechanics to argue with someone who actually knows the topic.

Hell, I have degrees in maths, and I've spent 20 years applying math in my job, and the least 3 of those have been managing a team that includes data scientists and statisticians. The amount of math that I don't understand is quite large. I don't make any claim to understand the Banach Tarski paradox (especially since I was unfamiliar with it until this thread), let alone intuitively.

The basic principle is in fact pretty simple and straightforward. You can do the multiplication trick with all kinds of shapes, at least the ordinary, non-pathological ones, as long as they're made of an infinity of points spread continuously over the extent of the shape, in a way analogous to the R set (I don't think it would work with one analogous to Q). The basic trick is that you can always partition an infinite set into two different subsets so that both will also be infinite sets also analogous to R. And so you could in fact do that again and again and each time produce new pairs of infinite subsets still analogous to R.

And so it wouldn't work in the real physical world if it is as we think it is, i.e. not analogous to R in that it couldn't be infinitely divided.

And Subsymbolic still hasn't provided any explanation that would show what's wrong with my diagnostic that Banach Tarski has no import for the physical world as we see it for now.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztGNznlowic&t=1s start at 1:00 to 3:30 . He talks about exactly what you claim does not exist.

Don't you think that conscious unity problem is nicely solved with entanglement? I have tried to explain this to you before. Since, have you taken a step back to think about just how strange the unity of consciousness would be without a unity of neural processes? The unity of consciousness is objectively staring us in the face as entanglement.

And if you need science to back this panpsychic claim, information integration theory has an actual scientific hypothesis where there is the q-space dimension where the consciousness is unified. Although it does not require QM entanglement, it does argue for the panpsychism that "conscious entanglement" would require. It's so obvious and so natural that we are the particles; therefor, our will and the particle's behavior are the same thing.

But if you want to stick with science, QM ends at probabilistic physics because there is no evidence yet for hidden variables or many worlds.

If you want to stick with the science, while local hidden variables have been ruled out, non local variables have not....meanwhile we have at least ten interpretations of QM, some being probabilistic, some not.


The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics

DBT, you give me possible ways that this free will can't work, but all I need is one way where it can to make free will possible.

But there's a better solution that is more widely accepted and which we can make a lot more sense of - firing rates in the first instant and narrativization in the second. There are definitely quantum effects in the brain bu they provide the noise the brain needs to function properly they are not flipping coins at a putative executive level.

 

[Subsymbolic]

If you want to know, I'm pretty sure I broadly understand the principle of the Banach Tarski paradox. I did two years of maths at university and I liked topology best so I'm intuitive enough about that sort of things. That's also why I understand it has no import for the physical world as we understand it so far.

I'm not intending to be difficult, just making an observation. I did three years of physics at university, and I liked modern physics best. I don't make any claims to be intuitive enough about dark matter or about the details of quantum mechanics to argue with someone who actually knows the topic.

Hell, I have degrees in maths, and I've spent 20 years applying math in my job, and the least 3 of those have been managing a team that includes data scientists and statisticians. The amount of math that I don't understand is quite large. I don't make any claim to understand the Banach Tarski paradox (especially since I was unfamiliar with it until this thread), let alone intuitively.

The basic principle is in fact pretty simple and straightforward. You can do the multiplication trick with all kinds of shapes, at least the ordinary, non-pathological ones, as long as they're made of an infinity of points spread continuously over the extent of the shape, in a way analogous to the R set (I don't think it would work with one analogous to Q). The basic trick is that you can always partition an infinite set into two different subsets so that both will also be infinite sets also analogous to R. And so you could in fact do that again and again and each time produce new pairs of infinite subsets still analogous to R.

And so it wouldn't work in the real physical world if it is as we think it is, i.e. not analogous to R in that it couldn't be infinitely divided.

And Subsymbolic still hasn't provided any explanation that would show what's wrong with my diagnostic that Banach Tarski has no import for the physical world as we see it for now.
EB

Ironically, you appear to have missed it, or failed to understand what it was. Post 167, here it is to save you looking:

Frankly, I'm just using BT as it's a fairly compelling application of the axiom of choice that clearly demonstrates irreducible emergence. Where IE gets teeth is in the hands of people like Donald Davidson and Jaegwon Kim, but it's not half as compelling as BT to those without a solid philosophical training.

So, Here's a really simple thought experiment application - I'm being chased by a bunch of crazed determinists being guided by Laplace's Demon. Obviously, as a monist, I know that everything supervenes on the physical, but that doesn't mean everything can be reduced to the physical so during a particularly determined car chase I ask my passenger to run through the process of proving BT. Still entirely determined, I am determined to decide to turn left if the result is two and right if the result is one. At the crucial moment, my passenger calls out the result and I make the turn. Left. Of course, the demon will predict right and I will escape.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/

For example.

Meanwhile, your position that:

The upshot of this fact is that whatever happens inside a human body at any given point in time is determined by its physical state at that point. And then, I'm pretty sure all scientists concerned are convinced that whatever a human being does is best explained by the physical state of his body immediately before doing it. That's true because that's true of just about anything physical, save perhaps some weird particles and fundamental things.

Is clearly false as BT is one example, among many, of one's logical state determining what happens. of course one's logical state supervenes upon one's physical state but it is irreducibly emergent (you really need to get to grips with that idea) and, as you have, perhap unwisely, argued already:

it wouldn't work in the real physical world

While it certainly does in the mathematical or logical world.

Simple.

Oh, and the passenger is a nod to the impossibility of driving fast and doing complex maths, there's nothing to stop me doing it myself...

 

[Juma]

That response is wrong on so many levels so there is really no way to answer it...
What I say is that the brain isa helluva complex thing and to model ut on a high level it just might be ok to use QM model but that diesnt mean that the brain actually acts using QM. Its is just a model.
At small scales though, atomic scales, we know that QM works, since it does everywhere.
But upon that scale there are numerous hierarchies in the brain that isnt QM at all. An it is these structures that makes your brain work as it does.
Thus, it may be that at the smallest scale the brain have QM parts, but each such part would handle so little informatio...

For us to be a QM pilot wave then all these tiny part be connected and there is absolutely no reason to belifve that they are.
And even if: how would this unified object be able to steer all these part (atoms!).

It is but a silly dream...

We would be a an entire entangled system of memories, predictions and decision making.

"The result would be the presence of entangled Posner's molecules in the cytoplasm of multiple presynaptic neurons, which could then lead to post-synaptic firing that is quantum correlated across these neurons."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5080346/

”Would be”.... it is all a dreamt up vision. There is no evidens for any of this. Such enormous entaglement just dosent exist.

 

[Treedbear]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

How about "arbitrary", "capricious", "unsupported", "whimsical", or "mercurial". So how is free will supposed to invoke personal responsibility?

 

[Subsymbolic]

What would you call an imaginary choice that you then act upon?

What is wrong with what you just called it? If you need a single noun to describe it, would "option" suffice? "Opportunity"? "Dilemma"?

How about "arbitrary", "capricious", "unsupported", "whimsical", or "mercurial". So how is free will supposed to invoke personal responsibility?

I don't believe I was, at that point talking about freewill, only the difference between simulating rain and thought on a computer. Given that, can you explain your interesting word options?

 

[DBT]

He explains how the consciousness goes back in time to make adjustments after receiving information, just for 2 mins.

As a start. Consciousness does not go back in time. Consciousness does not make adjustments. It is the brain that makes constant adjustments to consciousness using fresh inputs from the senses and signals from various body functions, limb movement, organs, etc. Consciousness being the brains mental representation of information from the external world and body/self through its central nervous system.