Materialism and Consciousness.

[onejayhawk]

If free will does exist, why has no one been able to design a single experiment to show it exists?

For starters, you have to create an environment in which to observe the experiment, define terms such as "free" and "choice", and above all, find an independant observer. It is a process akin to a fish designing a campfire: possible only in theory, and poorly even then.

In reality, we think in channels, rather than in free field, and our perception of possible choices creates much the outcome. In my example, the fish may conceive of an environment without water, but the reality would be beyond his grasp, when such fine distinctions as dampness or airflow come into play. This is assuming, BTW, the genius level conception of combustion.

We are shaped by our environemnt, our social interactions and our habits to the point that "Free Will" is a misnomer. Our choices are usually a matter of degree or quantity, rather than truly free choices.

J

 

[Sidhe]

Free will and quantum mechanics

OK the basics we can not determine at any point both where and how fast a particle such as an electron in an atom is moving. heisenbergs uncertainty principle

We cannot observe a particle without changing that particle therefore before we have measured it the cat is both alive and dead ala Schrodingers cat mind experiment:- which leads to

Super position electons appear to exist in every available position and orientation around an atom as long as it obeys the pauli exclusion pronciple that no to electrons can exist in the same state, I.e you can't have 3 electrons in the first shell or 2 electrons in the same position.

Quantum particles can and will do some extremely bizarre things, like appear on the other side of the universe for no apparent reason, or for example they can become entangled as in photons, so that whatever happens to one particle is instantly communicated to another, regardless of distance between the two seemingly but not actually appearing to defy the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Also particles pop in and out of existence all the time their life span is proportional the energy debt of their existence and planks constant.

So what we say is when you get down to the nano level of electron transference in the human brain, and the chemicle nano world. Wierd stuff happens all the time so wierd that you cannot ever say precisely why or what is happening. This means that inspiration for example could simply be a quantum blip or it could be an evolutionary chemicle process. But since no one can tell exactly how or why or what anything at the quantum level is going to do at any time, this leads to the notion that there is free will, because everything is probabilistic and not based in anyway on what has happened before.

As was said earlier this brings the whole question of interpritation into question: if we are programmed by evolution to see the quantum, must we not ask ourselves if that is what is really there? Has DNA simply found a way that suits reverse entropy, is anything we see exactly as it is. Did by thinking about the quantum we invent it or was it there to begin with.

Quantum mechanics=free will.

Destroy the laws of quantum mechanics and I will concede there is no free will

Ok about 30 pages back I made this statement.

I have provided evidence of how QM effects conciousness at the neuronal level and how it effects DNA.

I doubt anyone read it, but it's there if anyone wants to take a look, most of the papers cited come from Professors at the University of Arizona, that web site is also there, and some inference to NASA's experiments on how QM effects DNA are also there.

The currently accepted interpretation in Quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpritation(Bohmian interpritation produces the same results but from a particle like persepctive, both are equally accepted and valid since light is neither a wave nor a particle as such) Which says about the probabilistic nature of very small particles, that by observing them we destroy them so we can never know what is going on, only that the evidence of a superpostion of states exists(the interference patterns produced in single photon experiments, show that the photon appears to interfer with itself and that they are not due to photon-photon interaction thus demonstrating rather neatly that superposition is, if at least not directly viewable, at least inferable) that interacts with everything and that this state is non determined and in modern day science cannot be determined precisely without changing the nature of what your observing and losing the picture. Matter appears to have no predefined state, but a superposition of many states at it's fundemental levels. Electrons, particles rather than warticles and other small particles appear to behave like this too, which is even more puzzling.

Chaos impinges on the very fundementals of our being. this has suggested to philosophers that free will may have a glimmer of hope after all which is tied into how philosophers now think about things quite well. Materialism is at the most fundemental level pointless as the experiments can't be done to produce the results we are looking for therefore we must resort to other methods to produce results. Psychology or whatever, intangibles that deal with the subject wihtout resorting to the material to explain everything. It only takes you so far but the it breaks down. It took 23 pages to make this point, but I think you can argue it's a point even if you don't agree with it.

At the fundemental level God has put free will into the very nature of the universe

At least even perfection has given up saying QM has no effects on the macro, science would beg to difer.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I have provided evidence of how QM effects conciousness at the neuronal level [...]

[...]
Materialism is at the most fundemental level pointless as the experiments can't be done to produce the results we are looking for

You've provided evidence that QM-sensitive theories of consciousness are being taken seriously by some intelligent neuroscientists. That's a long way from proving that the theories are correct. And it's even further from showing that people's decisions are always in-principle unpredictable using physical methods.

You seem to be saying that decisions are always probabilistic, never certain. But there's a good evolutionary reason to doubt your view: organisms often face choices in which one alternative clearly leads to superior fitness. The organism which is certain to choose the superior alternative is more likely to pass on its genes, than an organism whose choices are random.

Imagine Ug the caveman looking at some berries. "Every person who ate these died immediately afterwards. They do look like they'd be yummy, though. Should I have some? Ah, what the heck!" Munch, munch, :suicide:

 

[Sidhe]

You've provided evidence that QM-sensitive theories of consciousness are being taken seriously by some intelligent neuroscientists. That's a long way from proving that the theories are correct. And it's even further from showing that people's decisions are always in-principle unpredictable using physical methods.

You seem to be saying that decisions are always probabilistic, never certain. But there's a good evolutionary reason to doubt your view: organisms often face choices in which one alternative clearly leads to superior fitness. The organism which is certain to choose the superior alternative is more likely to pass on its genes, than an organism whose choices are random.

Imagine Ug the caveman looking at some berries. "Every person who ate these died immediately afterwards. They do look like they'd be yummy, though. Should I have some? Ah, what the heck!" Munch, munch, :suicide:

Actually I wasn't trying to prove anything as complicated as that just to suggest that we may have random thoughts, completely indeterminate and based on quantum principles of Quantum electron tunneling between neurons, causing misfiring of synapses which may lead toi random thoughts, I also said dismissing the quantum was unwise as it obviosuly effects the macro.

My only goal was to show that dismissing the quantum was wrong not into making assumptions of exact effects, I can at least now suggest that materialism is a nonsense, I might be right might be wrong but it's a possibility.

Simply if we have truly chaotic thoughts then it conjurs up the chance of free will, which is what philosophers of some note are at least starting to suggest. Thus QM opens the potential for free will.

 

[Kyriakos]

Very interesting Sidhe
However imo there is no such thing as 'chaotic' thoughts, if by chaotic you mean not only apparently random, but trully random (in the sense that there is no calculation below them). My view is that there are always mental calculations below every mental process, although ofcourse in the immediate level of consciousness of an idnividual those processes below are not evident as themselves, but are evident collectively, in the form of some substrata of emotion which can be felt along with the thought taking place in the immediate level of consciousness. All emotion is made up from thought, or thought-calculation, which exists in some level below that of immediate consciousness, where only the actual thought is being examined consciously. My theory is that thoughts themselves are formations of mental corridors so to speak, so in a way you are the one who is walking inside the corridor, as an Ego, and you reach an edge there, depending on what the possible path/paths was/were to begin with. However that is just one thought/path, and below it there is an underground of such a corridor, which effects the ground of the corridor in many ways, felt as a substrata of emotion, but it also at the same time (due to the fact that it isnt consciously examined) makes you shape the view that your actual thought is progressing in an analytical/correct way towards a conclusion. In a way it is like when a mouse, used in lab experiments with labyrinths, walks into a path in the labyrinth, completely unaware that it is just walking in some artificially created environment, which was placed there for reasons that it cannot grasp. Likewise we can move in such environments, and feel very fine moving in the paths we find, but in reality those paths themselves are a real subject of observation.
My own philosophical work (i am a philosophy graduate) is on this subject

 

[Sidhe]

Very interesting Sidhe
However imo there is no such thing as 'chaotic' thoughts, if by chaotic you mean not only apparently random, but trully random (in the sense that there is no calculation below them). My view is that there are always mental calculations below every mental process, although ofcourse in the immediate level of consciousness of an idnividual those processes below are not evident as themselves, but are evident collectively, in the form of some substrata of emotion which can be felt along with the thought taking place in the immediate level of consciousness. All emotion is made up from thought, or thought-calculation, which exists in some level below that of immediate consciousness, where only the actual thought is being examined consciously. My theory is that thoughts themselves are formations of mental corridors so to speak, so in a way you are the one who is walking inside the corridor, as an Ego, and you reach an edge there, depending on what the possible path/paths was/were to begin with. However that is just one thought/path, and below it there is an underground of such a corridor, which effects the ground of the corridor in many ways, felt as a substrata of emotion, but it also at the same time (due to the fact that it isnt consciously examined) makes you shape the view that your actual thought is progressing in an analytical/correct way towards a conclusion. In a way it is like when a mouse, used in lab experiments with labyrinths, walks into a path in the labyrinth, completely unaware that it is just walking in some artificially created environment, which was placed there for reasons that it cannot grasp. Likewise we can move in such environments, and feel very fine moving in the paths we find, but in reality those paths themselves are a real subject of observation.
My own philosophical work (i am a philosophy graduate) is on this subject

Sounds interesting I was of course talking at a more fundemental level. In Quantum mechanics not only can you not determine anythings true state at a fundemental level but the act of doing so appears to radically alter the behaviour in question, meaning you lose any definitive data. Thus Electrons and light appear to exist in super positions of every state, and it is only when they interact with anything that they lose this state. This inherent Chaos in the true sense of the word, I.e totally unpredictable and quantifiable(Copenhagen interpritation) is what leads to the conclusion of free will. Matter appears to jealously guard it's true identity it seems that materialism, at the quantum level, is not viable and if it has effects on the real world I.e a neuron misfires and by proximity quantum electron tunneling ocurs then the end product of a thought may be somewhat different. It may help explain such conscious nightmares as inspiration, Deja vu, intuition etc. However I leave it up to others to draw firm conclusion. All I really wanted to say was assuming the quantum does not affect concious thought is at the best innacurate and at the worst unwise.

Feynman who died fairly recently could never get over just how inexplicable the two slit experiment was.

Essentially if you fire a photon at two slits, it travels through both slits or one if you close one slit(imagine a superpostion of states kind of like a ripple pattern from the wave rather than a sort of two dimensional wave, almost like an electron cloud around the atom at various distances, but existing everywhere at once within the possible configuration ranges a sort of gobstopper if you like) But the wierd thing is a single photon if you fire enough of them builds up an interference pattern suggesting? Since only one photon is fired what is interfering with the photon? When we have a stream of photons the pattern is caused by there interference with each other, but what is interfering in just one particle? The answer(according to the Copenhagen interpritation) the photon itself, it's superposition causes it too interfere with itself, thus supplying an infered evidence of superposition.

What's hard to wrap your head round is the fact that if you try to see which slit the photon travels through, by placing a detector at either of the slits then it loses the interference pattern, the photon becomes particle like not wavelike and you see it travel through only one slit, meaning no interference pattern, it simply strikes the back of the screen leaving a point as do the following photons so no built up interference pattern? Thus the inability to measure it that was inherent in heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and Schrodingers thought experiment involving cats(before you open the box the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, the act of opening the box determines the reality of the cats state) The world of the quantum is just inherently unpredictable(chaotic in the greek sense of the word) it seems,which lead Einstein to say famously God does not play dice with the universe. But it seems he does, maybe he uses loaded dice?