Free will?

[PolyHedral]

Apart from the fact that "chaos theory" began and continues to be dominated by research of the macroscopic world, the assertion that quantum mechanics has little to do with neural activity is an increasingly contentious one. For example, the peer-reviewed journal Physics of Life Review has a series of papers (most of them comments on a single review) currently in press on this issue. The journal Nature published Koch & Hepp's "Quantum mechanics in the brain" back in 2006. The amount of debate and research on the issue has only increased in the 21st century. In addition to the creation of a peer-reviewed journal pretty much devoted to the issue (and, as far as I know, largely ignored within the neuroscience and cognitive neuropsychology community) NeuroQuantology, various academic (i.e., edited and reviewed) volumes in various monograph series have been published along side the increasing number of journal articles. For example, Springer's The Frontiers Collection series has published a number of monographs and volumes supporting the idea that quantum mechanics is essential for consciousness, such as The Emerging Physics of Consciousness edited by Tuszynski (2006), Mind Matter & Quantum Mechanics by Stapp as well as his Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, and finally works on related issues concerning interpretations and models of modern physics (e.g, the edited volume Probability in Physics or Jaeger's Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

Ruling out the necessity of QM to explain the "mind" is more than a little premature at this point.

What experiments have they done?

 

[Thief]

Difference strokes for different folks. My chemistry, personal experiences, and atomic particles have led me to not believe in gods. Given your same genetics and experiences, I would (fuzzyness be damned) believe in gods as well.

You betray yourself here.

My genetics could then be better than yours.
You can't 'prove' otherwise.

My better genetics allow me a better insight.

Are you sure you want to pursue your shallow assertion?

 

[PolyHedral]

You betray yourself here.

My genetics could then be better than yours.
You can't 'prove' otherwise.

My better genetics allow me a better insight.

Are you sure you want to pursue your shallow assertion?

Genetics don't allow insight. Brain structure allows insight, and brain structure is almost all dictated by past experience.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What experiments have they done?

Who is "they"? Experiments on the possible relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness go back decades, but in particular began to gain ground after neuroimaging technology came into its own. In general, empirical evidence can be divided into the investigation of neural activity at a level so small classical mechanics is insufficient, and evidence which demonstrates that classical mechanics cannot adequately model both neural mechanisms and the observed result (the "mind"). There are problems with both types. With the first, observing quantum effects at the intracellular level can't get one any further than observing it at the level of the neuron or even neural populations. The more specific one gets about what is involved in cognition, the less one can say. This holds true whether it involves classical mechanics or quantum. We can look at areas of the brain involved in certain types of learning, memory, processing, etc., or we can build models of neurons and neural networks to attempt to learn how they work. However, our models are so vastly simplistic that they aren't useful for understanding how consciousness works, and looking at active brain regions can't tell us how that activity does what it does.

The problem with the other approach is that it rests on knowledge gaps. Brains (even non-human brains) do not appear to be reducible and/or deterministic (even in principle) in the way required of classical mechanics. The speed at which they operate involves a paradoxical relationship between the relatively slow signals generated by individual neurons to the unbelievably fast coordinated nonlocal activity of neural populations. This nonlocal and irreducible quality of neural populations is analogous to quantum entanglement. Some argue, therefore, that quantum mechanics is the only thing which can explain both the nonlocal nature of the brain and the ontological indeterminism of the "mind". But this kind of evidence simply demonstrates how inadequate our ability to deal with complexity is. It does not necessarily support the need for QM models of the mind.

The complexity of the brain and consciousness limits the amount of possible experiments- period. It doesn't matter if one is relying on classical conceptions of physics and causality or not.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You betray yourself here.

My genetics could then be better than yours.
You can't 'prove' otherwise.

My better genetics allow me a better insight.

Are you sure you want to pursue your shallow assertion?

Ego stroking already? "Better" is a subjective matter, and given that I had the same experiences and genetics as you, I would believe that belief in gods was better to.

 

[Thief]

Genetics don't allow insight. Brain structure allows insight, and brain structure is almost all dictated by past experience.

If this were true human error would not exist.
Our chemistry 'knows' better....?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If this were true human error would not exist.
Our chemistry 'knows' better....?

Ever seen someone get lost because they were given faulty directions? Genetic error?

 

[Thief]

Ever seen someone get lost because they were given faulty directions? Genetic error?

Ever see anyone make an error of judgment?
This thread seems to be headed that way.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ever see anyone make an error of judgment?
This thread seems to be headed that way.

So, you've never seen someone make errors based on incomplete or false information? You seem very eager to ignore that I have said both genetic factors and experience must be copied.

 

[Thief]

So, you've never seen someone make errors based on incomplete or false information? You seem very eager to ignore that I have said both genetic factors and experience must be copied.

And if we were truly driven by our chemistry....
All knowledge would be transferable at birth.

Shall we count reflex as knowledge?
And you would then argument...impulse cannot be denied?

(Black belt here!...impulse and denial of it, are disciplines....and willfulness)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And if we were truly driven by our chemistry....
All knowledge would be transferable at birth.

You seemed to be rambling, so I cut out the extraneous words. This is false. Even as you have said, humans are learning machines. Genetics may be the way information is processed, but a computer is also at the mercy of the data it is fed. Also, the human mind and body aren't fully developed at birth. Some processes don't fully develop until mid-20s or longer.

 

[Thief]

You seemed to be rambling, so I cut out the extraneous words. This is false. Even as you have said, humans are learning machines. Genetics may be the way information is processed, but a computer is also at the mercy of the data it is fed. Also, the human mind and body aren't fully developed at birth. Some processes don't fully develop until mid-20s or longer.

And all of these processes are genetic?

Self disciplines that change the way you think and feel...are genetic?
Disciplines that change your reflexes are.... genetic?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And all of these processes are genetic?

Self disciplines that change the way you think and feel...are genetic?
Disciplines that change your reflexes are.... genetic?

I would say many have a weak genetic basis, but compared to other animals, humans have evolved to have rather loose instincts, allowing for greater adaption to information.

 

[Octavia156]

then you would have done so for a reason, and since the reason is inevitable, so is your joining the army.

Reality is chaotic only at the quantum level, far too insignificant to influent most macroscopic decisions. Other than those, you cannot be faulted, or credited, because "you" are merely a nice abstraction we built out of physics and biochemistry because it makes life easier.

With the quantum, truly random decisions on the other hand, you are still not responsible, because it's not possible for you to influence it in any way.

I'm sure it is comforting to believe you are not responsible for your actions...

I agree with what you say if applied to animal consciousness, biosurvival, reflex actions etc... however we do possess the power to act against our predelictions, programming and even quantum impluses..

so i stand by my original point - to view everything as ultimately "not your responsibility" is mentally undisciplined and spiritually stunting.

 

[Octavia156]

That's the thing. They don't "twist your arm". They are your arm, and your brain, and your senses, and your perception, and your will. They don't have to twist anything. They are in full control, to the extent that anything probabilistic can be said to control.

hmmm - yes the make up your arm, and your brain... they transmitt energy and so therefore are your senses and your perceptions.. but they are NOT your UNDERSTANDING.

You cannot attritube a partical model to explain the mind or how they are responsible for thought, and therefore they cannot be "in full control" or be responsible for the will..

energy moves the car, particles make up the car - but who's driving?

 

[PolyHedral]

I agree with what you say if applied to animal consciousness, biosurvival, reflex actions etc... however we do possess the power to act against our predelictions, programming and even quantum impluses..

What is "you" apart from the atoms that make you up?

 

[Thief]

So at this point some participants have no sense of will?

And they that don't, are going to respond because their genetics made them do it?!!!!!

Try that in front of a judge and see what you get!

 

[Octavia156]

What is "you" apart from the atoms that make you up?

well if you look closely enough - you can't tell where my nose ends and the air begins...

i think thats the point - "I" is clearly not made of atoms...

 

[PolyHedral]

well if you look closely enough - you can't tell where my nose ends and the air begins...

i think thats the point - "I" is clearly not made of atoms...

However, I can tell what is definitely, without question, you. And the only thing we've found so far in there is configurations of atoms.

 

[Thief]

However, I can tell what is definitely, without question, you. And the only thing we've found so far in there is configurations of atoms.

Do you mean the genetic info?
Which would be unique.

Or the simple bodily existence we all have?

Not all are spiritual.....'let the dead bury the dead'.