Free will or "free will"?

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:13 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

DCQE proved quite elegantly and definitively that the existence (or non-existence) of "which-path" information determines how photons will act

there is no other reputable interpretation of the DCQE results

 

any hypothesis that doesn't address "which-path" information is gonna have its work cut out for it

(almost like a Flat Earth theory that tries to account for all the evidence of a Round Earth)

 

I don't think that's correct. Either way though, even if quantum uncertainty was a fundamental facet of reality, it wouldn't be much use for free will, it just means that certain physical interactions are genuinely random, doesn't mean there's a will instigating the randomness.

Not sure if this talk about quantum biology was posted here before, but might be interesting

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:23 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:13 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

DCQE proved quite elegantly and definitively that the existence (or non-existence) of "which-path" information determines how photons will act

there is no other reputable interpretation of the DCQE results

 

any hypothesis that doesn't address "which-path" information is gonna have its work cut out for it

(almost like a Flat Earth theory that tries to account for all the evidence of a Round Earth)

 

 

I don't think that's correct.

it is 100% correct

i would bet a large sum of money on it

there is simply no way to understand DCQE without "which path" information

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

it is 100% correct

i would bet a large sum of money on it

there is simply no way to understand DCQE without "which path" information

yeah, there is. read the wiki page for a few other possibilities. the consensus might be for a certain interpretation of it, and it's one I'd go with as well, but the others aren't quite logically or experimentally ruled out as of yet.

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:39 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

it is 100% correct

i would bet a large sum of money on it

there is simply no way to understand DCQE without "which path" information

 

yeah, there is. read the wiki page for a few other possibilities. the consensus might be for a certain interpretation of it, and it's one I'd go with as well, but the others aren't quite logically or experimentally ruled out as of yet.

 

can you walk me through an alternative explanation?

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:26 PM, goDel said:

Not sure if this talk about quantum biology was posted here before, but might be interesting

 

That is some trippy shit

somehow this entire field (new as it may be) completely flew under my radar

  On 1/21/2016 at 8:48 PM, LimpyLoo said:

can you walk me through an alternative explanation?

no, I ain't a quantum physicist. but they're there.

back to free will in general, this guy's experiments were interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

basically his idea is that our conscious experience of an action occurs after the actual physical action associated with it. so the subconscious brain might trigger an action, and around the same time trigger our conscious experience of said action. our conscious experience of free will then essentially becomes a post-hoc narrative generated by our subconscious.

I don't think his experiments have been reproduced though, and there's some argument over whether or not he's accounted for all possible experimental error, as well as there being more philosophical arguments against it as well.

interesting stuff either way.

@ limpy:

agree. before this talk i was basically under the impression that anything quantum related was basically lost when you go to super atomic levels of reality. this talk basically shows that might be bullshit.

not that it will automatically will be needed to explain stuff like consciousness/free will. and if it does, it probably won't explain our own 'experience of awareness' (qualia?). there still seems to be a sense of anthropomorphic magic in the context of theorising about consciousness/free will. similar to how people thought the sun revolves around a flat earth. (so i guess i'm implying that our experience of consciousness might have some epiphenomenological aspects to it..)

* takes another pot shot *

It's not really surprising that biological systems would use the oddities of quantum physics to their advantage when you think about it. Everything is made out of atoms and their constituents which follow quantum mechanics, so it's not really difficult to imagine that over the billions of years that life has existed and evolved found ways to harness it in some way.

Explaining consciousness as some manifestation of quantum physics is iffy and more into the quantum woo side of things. Quantum physics is mysterious, consciousness is mysterious, so they must be connected.

Why would a mind have a tendency to "trick" us into believing there is free will?

Really what biological, evolutional,... benefits are there?

Science is looking through the wrong end of the tube in this case I believe.

It's kind of the same as they're saying "love is just an illusion, just chemical reactions, you're being tricked."

Really, WTF?

It's kind of the same as saying "you're not actually thirsty, your brain is tricking you into believing you need water through chemical reactions in your brain."

It's f# data transfer for god's sake. Would I stop drinking water because of knowing that? Is it that I don't actually need water? Is this some kind of natural conspiracy to drink water I don't really need?

Are the bits in your computer calculated by an "illusion of electrons running about your CPU"? Right, the post I'm writing right now is not really there, my computer is not really functioning. It's just an illusion, magic I might say.

Fuck this neo-liberal shit these days.

Dude, relax. We're just a bunch of potsmoking chinstrokers. Take a deep breath. Inhale. And tell us your wonderful theories. Bonuspoints if they're completely different than what you're currently reading! F#ck the nay-sayers.

why would an unconscious thought not be free will? it's hardly an external source. it's like an operating system on a computer.

  On 1/22/2016 at 12:54 PM, MDM Chaos said:

why would an unconscious thought not be free will? it's hardly an external source. it's like an operating system on a computer.

I suppose that comes down to how exactly you define it. If it's our intuitive notion of free-will, then it's not really compatible, in that view our conscious sense of self is directly linked to any notion of the prime cause behind free will. If we can successfully relegate the causative factors to our unconscious though then our unconscious could still have free will, but our our conscious self would be trapped in a kind of prison, along for the ride - like the end of Being John Malkovic without the self-awareness of it. And of course if it's subconscious brain function that is solely responsible, then you can't pinpoint any root causes, you've done anyway with any dualism (well, you can't rule it out I guess, but there's no evidence for it), it's just all a mess of physical cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level, which doesn't really align with any sensible definition of free will that I know of.

  On 1/21/2016 at 9:10 PM, caze said:

back to free will in general, this guy's experiments were interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

 

basically his idea is that our conscious experience of an action occurs after the actual physical action associated with it. so the subconscious brain might trigger an action, and around the same time trigger our conscious experience of said action. our conscious experience of free will then essentially becomes a post-hoc narrative generated by our subconscious.

 

I don't think his experiments have been reproduced though, and there's some argument over whether or not he's accounted for all possible experimental error, as well as there being more philosophical arguments against it as well.

 

interesting stuff either way.

Dennett has quite a good take-down of Libet (in 'consciousness explained').

If I remember it correctly, its to do with the brain parallel processing which means consciousness is spread out across most of the brain and also spread out across time, so that you can't identify 'when' you became conscious of something in any great detail. There is no 'finishing line' in the brain which marks the point at which you become conscious of something. So asking someone to remember where a clock-hand was when they decided to do something will just lead to random results.

Yeah, I've read Consciousness Explained but couldn't remember the details, sounds about right.

  On 1/22/2016 at 12:54 PM, MDM Chaos said:

why would an unconscious thought not be free will? it's hardly an external source. it's like an operating system on a computer.

How could an unconscious thought not NOT be free will?

you have no control over it...it's like producing white blood cells

  On 1/22/2016 at 4:54 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/22/2016 at 12:54 PM, MDM Chaos said:

why would an unconscious thought not be free will? it's hardly an external source. it's like an operating system on a computer.

 

How could an unconscious thought not NOT be free will?

you have no control over it...it's like producing white blood cells

 

Well, in that case, the concept of free will is like a walk in the park. Any autonomous agent, think about those self-controlled cars for instance, has a free will. Any non-deterministic system with a sense of autonomy would have free will. Fine with me, though. But I'm sure there are people with a different idea about what is "free will".

Extra observation for free: the "will" part could imply some (self)consciousness. Otherwise, we could talk about "free subconscious desires" instead of "free will". Which might also be an interesting exercise. How free would those subconscious desires actually be? If I can't control my subconscious, than wtf are we talking about!? *mindfuck*

no you have deliberately misunderstood my reference godel you tiresome arse.

the way i figure it (and this is just my opinion) we have behaviour patterns that we build up during our lifetimes which is all stored in our subconscious mind.

this means we have certain predispositions to behave in particular ways according to previous decisions we have made at some point in our lives.

when faced with a choice between one or another choice of action, we have the ability to go either way but are predisposed to pick one.

having said that you can programme people with subconscious messages such as NLP and other methods of suggestion.

these bypass the conscious mind and cut straight down to the predispositions and in some cases instincts.

  On 1/22/2016 at 5:37 PM, MDM Chaos said:

no you have deliberately misunderstood my reference godel you tiresome arse.

 

the way i figure it (and this is just my opinion) we have behaviour patterns that we build up during our lifetimes which is all stored in our subconscious mind.

 

this means we have certain predispositions to behave in particular ways according to previous decisions we have made at some point in our lives.

 

when faced with a choice between one or another choice of action, we have the ability to go either way but are predisposed to pick one.

 

having said that you can programme people with subconscious messages such as NLP and other methods of suggestion.

 

these bypass the conscious mind and cut straight down to the predispositions and in some cases instincts.

"Free will" (usually) doesn't simply mean "unconstrained by external forces"

it (usually) means that for any choice you've made, you could've chosen otherwise

(given identical circumstances)

however, there is almost no way (given this usual definition) to account for HOW or WHY someone might possibly choose otherwise

(again, given identical circumstances)

can't help but read

"free wifi"

every tiem

  On 1/22/2016 at 5:28 PM, goDel said:

Well, in that case, the concept of free will is like a walk in the park. Any autonomous agent, think about those self-controlled cars for instance, has a free will. Any non-deterministic system with a sense of autonomy would have free will.

The problem is we don't know if there is such a thing as a true non-deterministic system. What we call things like that are just things where it's too complicated for us to predict the outcome, it doesn't mean the outcome isn't actually fully deterministic. That's why the question of quantum indeterminacy is important, though knowing the answer one way or the other still wouldn't settle the free will question (given other definitions of it), it would limit the available models though.

I remember when i was a kid

being amazed by the idea of "an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object"

and then i realized that this is just a semantic sleight-of-hand

and that it's meaningless

anyway, i think 90% of philosophical debate is essentially:

"unstoppable force would win...it's unstoppable"

"nah mate, immovable object...it's immovable"

"nah mate"

"nah mate"

and usually the "solution" is some really boring conceptual analysis of the terms being used

  On 1/22/2016 at 6:19 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

and usually the "solution" is some really boring conceptual analysis of the terms being used

True but

We have a tendency to use very complex concepts and theories to explain one simple element of something that itself is actually really complex,but just ignore the actual complexity. I do the opposite tho cause me stupid... It's like when you're a kid knowing that Santa doesn't exist and it's just your parents but you still get presents, Christmas still goes ahead despite your original concept of it being a lie, so who gives a fuck.. and active imagination/delusion make the thought of Santa just as exciting? This is really reductive but the average person's idea of what free will even is, doesn't get smashed to pieces by saying everything predetermined or whatev because predetermined might as well be meaningless at that point, real isn't real, etc. just move the goal post over the ball and call it a goal,why not..

There's an area of the brain that is comes in to action immediately after an unconsciously triggered emotion is felt, like fear, at that point you are gathering all counter-evidence to that emotion being required at that moment.. this shit is important because you have what feels like direct control over it,it doesn't matter how it came to be .. the fact that it feels like free will is enough to influence how your brain (you) progresses. edit: guess what i'm saying is unreal concepts that are born of randomness become something that actually does have potential to go in trillions of directions at once n at some point it is no longer predetermined as long as the concept of free will is believed to be real

  On 1/22/2016 at 6:00 PM, phling said:

can't help but read

"free wifi"

 

every tiem

A sign of the times, no doubt.

  On 1/22/2016 at 7:13 PM, boo said:

 

  On 1/22/2016 at 6:19 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

and usually the "solution" is some really boring conceptual analysis of the terms being used

True but

 

We have a tendency to use very complex concepts and theories to explain one simple element of something that itself is actually really complex,but just ignore the actual complexity. I do the opposite tho cause me stupid... It's like when you're a kid knowing that Santa doesn't exist and it's just your parents but you still get presents, Christmas still goes ahead despite your original concept of it being a lie, so who gives a fuck.. and active imagination/delusion make the thought of Santa just as exciting? This is really reductive but the average person's idea of what free will even is, doesn't get smashed to pieces by saying everything predetermined or whatev because predetermined might as well be meaningless at that point, real isn't real, etc. just move the goal post over the ball and call it a goal,why not..

 

There's an area of the brain that is comes in to action immediately after an unconsciously triggered emotion is felt, like fear, at that point you are gathering all counter-evidence to that emotion being required at that moment.. this shit is important because you have what feels like direct control over it,it doesn't matter how it came to be .. the fact that it feels like free will is enough to influence how your brain (you) progresses.

 

to further stress my point: what do people ITT consider "you"

simply your conscious experience?

your body and your subconscious mind?

this is the boring conceptual analysis i was talking about

but it's hugely important for determining if "you" have "free will"?