I could listen to you talk all day, your words are honey to my mind! and that is a complement! From this women!

Sat 08/01/09 01:33 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Seems like a wrong assumption may lead to the wrong conclusion -- for instance:
QUOTE:
What is free choice? Is that choice where there is no conditions placed on the choice? Where conditions are what hamper freedom? Choice without what? Free from what? Saying determinism DOES NOT ANSWER the question. That is called a negative definition and does not tell you what something is, it tells you what something is not.

Not necessarily, even a negative definition is precise enough for an answer...
Example:
The result of an equation -- "2+2=" -- is defined as
NOT 1,
NOT 2,
NOT 3,
NOT 5 or anything above...

Clearly, such a Negative definition DOES indicate what something IS! ! ! (zero is excluded cuz the sum of the positive numbers must be greater then zero)


The set of natural numbers is infinite, try this one 25^50*15^25, now use a negative definitions to resolve this answer before you die of old age? Not going to happen without a super computer.

If only free will was as easy as 2+2, then we could all brush off our hands and be done with it regardless of positive or negative definitions.

My statements stands negative definitions tell you what something is not, not what something is, even with a neg def, you must then use analysis to reach a conclusion, it provides very little information for your analysis and in a large set its near on useless.

Please for give me for butting in..

So then free will, is this:

Before we are born we have no will, we are not free because we have not become 1+ we are still 0-/ Until we are born out of a woman only then do we become 1 but it depends if we are a 1+ or a 1-, I see no readon to place a Negitive on a human that has no understanding of life or numbers! so we will make the infant a 1+,

Now that the child has grown and seen much the 1+ is starting to come to a 1- for the fact that Social states and Physics are now chaning this child into what society choses and by the time the child is 18 the child is a - negitive for learining only bad behaviors, in life.

so then Free is the choice of ones soul, and Choice is the aspect that one can be a Positive or a Negitive in ones Free life!

so if I am a Negivtive person and only see negive at 47- then how would one become a +positive at 47+.

If i was to take my choice and choose to be Positive for the rest of my life and never say anything Negitive then i would be no dought a + in this factor! Right?

Then it is the freedome of choice that i chose this.

so if a serial killer was born a + and became a - then it was his free will to kill, to be negitive.

So if we are of Quantum Mechanics then are time frain on this earth is one thing!

We have been put on this earth, or make of this earth to be free and make are own choices.

any yet other country's humans are not free they are controlled they have no freedom no will but the existence of a body with out a soul.

Then why is only one nation Free when other nations are controlled,
Dang it I lost my train of thought,, I am so sorry.... I am trying so bare with me.

Macro molecules and electrical signals . . . quantum?

Can you be precise and explain what quantum effects are necessary for the human brain to function?

Not if your above assertion is incorrect.

Maybe its time to get specific . . .

Please describe to me the exact process in the brain.

PS Abra, the poeple discussing in that thread are some of the top professionals in the world working on this problem, and the problem of consciousness in AI, I certainly would not poo poo anything in that thread.

The devil is in the details, and I have seen no specific details to back up your assertions.

Can conscious experience—feelings, phenomenal qualia, our ‘inner life’—be accommodated within present-day science?

Those who believe it can (e.g. proponents of physicalism, reductionism, materialism, functionalism, computationalism) see conscious experience as an emergent property of complex computation in networks of brain neurons. In these approaches consciousness is viewed as a higher order effect emerging from lower level, non-conscious entities.

Others believe consciousness cannot be accommodated within present day or future science. Cartesian dualists see consciousness and physical matter as separate and irreconcilable. A modern version of dualism is ‘mysterianism,’ or cognitive closure, which suggests that consciousness exists within science but cannot be understood by conscious beings, and we should stop worrying about it.

I am smart enough to look information UP>>>> lol

Now this is a site! I would rather learn this stuff then.. Dose your girl have a bootie?

so thank you... for letting me educate myself.

You bring up some interesting points grrrrrrr. I have my own answers to all the points you bring up. Although, I confess that this is precisely what they are; my own answers.




Assuming a "healthy" brain (whatever that entails), a yoga or buddist would say that you most certainly do have the ability to knock that song out of your head if you truly want to. However, having said that, they also confess that this may take practice on your part via meditation. Our brains are not all that different from our muscles. If we want to have good control over our muscles we need to work out. Same thing is true with our brains. And physicality comes into play. There are diseases of both muscle and brains that can render us unable to control them properly. Thus the reason I began the paragraph by assuming a "healthy" brain.



Random thoughts pop into everyone's brain all the time. This is how the brain works. The key is not in stopping those thoughts from emerging in the first place. The key is in learning how to only focus on the thoughts you are truly interested in and to ignore the others. In fact, many people believe, (myself included), that the types of thoughts that pop into your brain are indeed dependent upon the previous thoughts that you have chosen to focus on. The thoughts that you are currenly focusing on do indeed play a role on helping to 'attract' or 'generate' new thoughts.

The chose of which thoughts you focus on will have affect on the next thoughts that will pop into your mind. That is also not 'determinism' in the strictest sense. Just like in quantum mechanics, the individual thoughts are still random, all that has changed is the over all probability curve of what types of thoughts will be generated.

Again, that presumes a 'healthy' biological brain. Medical doctors have recognized that pressure from tumors, chemical inbalances, and other physical factors can indeed change the behavior of a brain.



Well again, the question of a 'healthy' brain, as well as 'healthy' environment do indeed play a role. The idea is that you should be able to control those factors to some degree. You can indeed control the chemical reactions in your brain by diet, physical exercise (which also affects brain chemistry) and by what thoughts you choose to focus on.

You're environment can indeed play a huge role in what thoughts are brought to your attention by the external world. There can be no doubt about that. If you are being physically held captive in a concentration camp you're going to be having quite different thoughts than you would be having if you were sailing free on a cruise ship with a lot of friendly women flirting with you.

Environment and external simuli is definitely a factor to be sure.



Well again, from my point of view, once the dice have left the hand they can be fully determined. However, if the brain of the person who threw the dice was sparked into action by the random quantum events that you feel 'prevent' free will, then clearly the overall toss most certainly was born of randomness. So the outcome of the roll would still be random even if the result was physically determined from the time the dice left the hand. The randomness had already been established in the action of the initiation of the toss.

~~~

Overall, you seem to be denying 'free Will' altogether. If things are predetermined, you clearly have no free will because all your actions have been predetermined. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that if things are ultimatley based on randomness then you have no 'free will' either because you feel that you can't selectively choose from the random possiblities.

Therefore, it would appear that you're just flat out denying the concept of 'free will' in either case. Which may very well be an interesting view to take.

The idea of disease, and/or unhealthy brains or environments is also a huge question. Clearly not everyone is totally 'free' either physically or mentally.

The question then becomes far more complexed. Are people genuinely responsible for the diseases they contract, and physical situations they get themselves into? That's a question I have yet come to grips with myself. Although I'm tending toward the answer that they are indeed responsible for everything ultimately. I have my own reasons for coming to this conclusion which I won't go into here.

Electrons are most certainly quantum phenomena. They are considered to be as fundamental as it gets. They are as fundamental as a quark.

Therefore any and all activity in the brain that is dependent upon electrical activity will always be open to quantum effects. To claim otherwise would be the claim that needs to show some sort of justification, IMHO.

Many other processes in the brain are also quite dependent upon the chemical state of fluids in and around the brain cells. It's not just macro molecules operating in free empty space. They are in a bath of molecular soup, most of which consists of free ions and radicals (not macro molecules at all). So again these are quantum entities.

The brain isn't a pre-etched printed circuit board containing rigid integrated semiconductor chips. It's far more dynamic than this.

You ask me to explain why quantum effects are necessary for the brain to function. I never said that they would be necessary, all I said is that it's obvious that they affect how it functions.

I don't see how this could be denied in the face of neurobiology.

This is one of those cases where you are asking me to demonstrate where there is no distinct line between the macro and quantum activities in the brain.

But how can I show that there is no distinct line?

Wouldn't it make far more sense for me to demand that someone else, who believes that such a distinct line can be drawn, to demonstrate precisely where they think it should be drawn?

Draw that line and then I'll suggest why I feel that line doesn't hold water.

Untill then, how could I possibly show that no such line exists?

You'll have to show me a line that can be addressed first. I'm absolutely certain that you would find it impossible to draw any such line. Wherever you draw a line, I'll show why that line doesn't hold. That's all I can offer.

The question then becomes far more complexed.

Are people genuinely responsible for the diseases they contract, and physical situations they get themselves into?

That's a question I have yet come to grips with myself. Although I'm tending toward the answer that they are indeed responsible for everything ultimately. I have my own reasons for coming to this conclusion which I won't go into here.

YES>>>>Are people genuinely responsible for the diseases they contract!

We live in a society of environment bad health, we chose to destroy or own selfish body's knowing that we can control this.

in the state that one chooses to smoke, or drink ect. but knows it will cause damage to ones body and shorten there life span knowing that this is better then being alive on this planet and dealing with work, wife's/husband/kids. ect. It is ones choice.

Why! We do this to make others feel sorry for us, we do this to harm oneself so we will go to ??? or God in the end but faster. We do this out of society that gives a reward system for being good.

if a child cleans there room we get a cookie
if a adult goes to work he brings home a paycheck

if a child stays home sick thy get pampered, given treats, and watches tv. they are being REWARD FOR BEING SICK.
if a adult calls in sick to work he is getting reward he gets "sick time pay' for being sick, are society teaches us to be sick so we can and will take advantage of this.

Are society allows us to stay home and do nothing get a paycheck for being sick, and yet on the other side.
A person works 117hrs a week to better themselves, to give back to society, to help the world for a Profit!

One has been programed to be sick which from infant to adult knows nothing other then how... HOW TO BE SICK!

The other has been taught intelligent, to strive to have his mind flourish with knowledge and in this proses they are never sick! They don't make time to be sick????? Point made!



physical situations they get themselves into? YES! We chose To believe the doctors meds, pills, decisions are correct and will make us better.

Example, ON who might get Sumac poising will rush to the hospital and get treatment with medicine and walk away with a $185.00 bills and it will be over in 3 days.

but the other person who has faith there own choice, chose to not be treated and suffers for 7 weeks knowing that God will heal them!
They do however use over the counter drugs and items to help heal!

the out come in this is the same They did not believe there own judgment or decisions that the body will heal itself.

Mind, body and soul as one not 3 different.

society teaches us that, are Mind is uncontrollable, are Body is Controllable and are Soul is a choice. if this is true then we would not have a Free will... for we can not make decisions for oneself but we have others make them for us.


YOU are the most interesting person i have ever met in my entire life Sir Abracadabra!

Wouldn't it make far more sense for me to demand that someone else, who believes that such a distinct line can be drawn, to demonstrate precisely where they think it should be drawn?

Draw that line and then I'll suggest why I feel that line doesn't hold water.

Until then, how could I possibly show that no such line exists?

You'll have to show me a line that can be addressed first. I'm absolutely certain that you would find it impossible to draw any such line. Wherever you draw a line, I'll show why that line doesn't hold. That's all I can offer.
-------------------------

So if there is only a solution each time, but there is no Question? How to solve the solution then the solution can not be answered, for there was no question? in the first place! to even discuss "why or why not" it "may or may not" be the answer to the question to solve!

The 20th century rise of computation and cognitive science cast consciousness—mind, the mental—as a computational processing of discrete (e.g. digitized) information. Regarding ‘the physical,’ advances in string theory, quantum field theory, quantum geometry and other approaches attempt to account for the fine structure of the physical world differently, but are all based on discrete quantized units of information. Wheeler (1994), Smolin (2001), Lloyd (2008) and others have suggested in various ways that information is fundamental to the nature of reality, and that in some sense the universe is composed of interactive information processing—that the universe is, in essence, a computer.

If this is true then are minds would be transforming to information but the problem is this.

Are minds do intake a lot of information however a computer can hold information as well.

If the computer breaks? there is only left a mind to fix the computer so to teach are minds to be all they can be with out the use of society's on going (material world) forcing us to have Free will in doing as we please, in influencing us to believe we have the "will" and yet we do not use it!

There for if ""will is free" then humans and only humans need to learn more to improve there Body, Mind and Soul.

When all else Fails then Mankind will also!

In this prosses, we have made a society that is unable to care for themself, who are always sick and who have no mentale exchange in converstation to be able to make rash judgments!

then I even question my self as a women/child and mother! I think I know how to raise children but i have been shown that if Free will dose exsist and if Bateson (1970), Bohm (1986), Wheeler (1994) and Chalmers (1996)a) psycho/experiential/mental, and b) physical/material aspects.

What is the connection between them?

That was a nice thread yes... But top professionals?

In the 5 pages I read... 1 professor. 1 Post-grad. 1 graduate and 5 students.... oh and something called a 'muse'...?

These are our 'top' professionals...?

Other then the fancier words and a 'proper' use of scientific jargon they sounded much like us...

i.e. Where is my tail... There it is! Ooops it went left... No thats your tail...

Just like on here.

I say my good bye's! I thank you all for teaching me something I have never ever known about, I have been so intrigued with the words that only "Happiness" has come out of my day! Intelligent and pure simple minded people are the same the only different is this..

the computer! and a simple penile that was used in the 1700's to form a idea that is still being debated about after all these Centuries

I bid my farewell! For tomorrow is another day to learn something new!

Will self-hypnosis and Yoga allow me to control my bodily functions, errrr, such as, can it allow me to stay awake 24 hours a day, 365 days a year....can it allow me to not ever eat again and still function....can it allow me to stay alive forever.....uhmmmm?

Let me know....

randomness allows it and even encourages it

The electrical and chemical reactions take place in the brain before th e thought center begins to process them...

This is common knowledge since imaging.

We know that there are areas in the brain which directly affect not only how one behaves, but how one can process perception. There are direct and accurate correlations between these areas of the brain and types of behaviour associated with them. Alter the chemical combinations and you will alter the thinking and behaviour with or without consent...

Free will?

It seems that my position has been misunderstood through illogical presupposition and conclusions that do not follow from my claim regarding QM indeterminism and free will.



Acausal is the play on words here.

I am simply refuting the notion of quantum mechanics being held as evidence to dismiss the relevance of determinism and support the notion of free will. That is the wrongful position that I have heard too many times to count, and has been used in an attempt to justify illogical beliefs concerning an illogical universe is based upon the idea that QM has no cause and therfore must be free. That conclusion is wrong. If we can know a definite range of probability, and we can, then the event is governed by laws. Laws are causal... deterministic.

Acausal does not mean having no cause, it refers to a series of events(system) in which the outcome depends upon things which have yet to have been determined. It does not mean that those future inputs are free from determination.



A range of possibilities is determined by knowns. As the die progresses through the range of possibilities, it successively narrows the probability for the outcome until there is only one possibility left. All of those things are determined by what happens during the roll itself.

A probability formula is based upon what is known about what may happen. All of those possibilities have yet to have been determined, but will be. That does not make them undeterminable.



If you want to say that being restricted somehow equates to being free, then many would argue with that. It is an illogical claim.

That is my point!



That kind of random is restricted.



Point taken, none-the-less, you missed the bigger picture.

Random is meaningless in that sense with regard being free from influence. That is required of an agent with free will.

That is why it is a bastardization of the concept itself to attempt to justify one's belief in free will with QM 'randomness'.



Yeah, that's what it is. Groundless claim.



That does not equate to being free from determinism. The actions of the coin during the flip and successive bounces will determine which side lands up.



In this case random does not contradict determinism nor free the will from it.



You focused on the irrelevant!

My assertion is that QM randomness is not at odds with determinism just because there are determinates which have yet to have been actualized.

My assertion is that QM 'randomness' does not lend support to free will.

And a totally absurd point it is.

If you want to speak in terms of "absolute free will", then it's clearly obvious that human beings do not have that kind of 'free' will.

We can't just will ourselves to become young again. We can't will ourselves to grow wings and fly. We can't even will ourselves to stop aging. There are clearly a lot of things we are not 'free' to do.

But isn't that missing the entire point of the conversation?

Of course it is.

You're being utterly absurd in your approach because you aren't considering the question within the context of the universe as we experience it. Every idiot on the planet knows that we don't have the kind of free will you are referring to.

Clearly that is not the question of free will that is being seriously comtemplated here. Neither does QM support the kind of utterly unrestrained 'free will' that you are attempting to address.

You say,...



Your 'definition' of 'free will' is not the kind of free will that QM supports. It's that simple.

Nowhere does QM suggest that anything is completely free of restrictions. It merely says that things are free within certain boundaries. And that's all that is required to have 'free will' as humans typically think of 'free will'.

We already know that we don't have the free will to become younger, or grow wings, or whatever.

You just don't seem to understand the context of the question with respect to QM. QM speaks to the practical issues of free will within the context of this physical universe.

You're attempting to address some lofty abstract idea of a "perfectly free" will to be able to do anything at all.

I think most people on the street have long since recognized that we don't have that kind of 'free will'.

You're not addressing the issues of QM and "free will" at all.

You're attempting to address some other totally unrelated abstract idea of 'absolulte free will' that is not restrained by anything at all.

That would have nothing at all to do with QM. You just miss the point of QM entirely. QM shows how we can have free will within the confines of the physical laws of this universe.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

And it succeeds in this perfectly.

The concepts that you're attempting to address have absolutely nothing to do with QM or even this universe from an empirical point of view. You're way off in left field somewhere totally oblivious to what QM actually has to say about the physical laws of this universe.

Of course it wouldn't. Not by your definition of 'free will'.

The only problem is that QM does not support that kind of free will.

We all know that we don't have absolute free will in this universe. We all know that we are restricted by the physicality of this universe. The kind of 'free will' that you are attempting to define probably doesn't exist anywhere. And most people probably wouldn't even argue with that.

So you're not even addressing the same concept of 'free will' that is being address by those who can clearly see how QM permits free will to occur within the physical confines of this universe.

In short, QM shows how the universe allows us to get around Newtonian determinism.

That's what QM shows.

Period.

To argue for any other 'lofty abstract notions' of 'absolute' free will or some other forms of 'determinism' beyond that is to miss the point entirely.

Those kinds of arguments would need to come up with their own empirical grounds which they currently do not have. So currently they are nothing more than unsubstantiated gobbledygook.

F=ma

i'll say it again.

F=ma

Now that is a new word I learned, "Gobbledygook".