Well, this topic has indeed been addressed and continues to be refined all the time.

The Teaching Company Course on Quantum Mechanics contains a very good description of the differences. The lecturer begins with a baseball and describes what all would need to be done to it before it could behave like a quantum object. That description is quite enlightening.

The bottom line is that the baseball would ultimately need to be reduced to a situation where no information emanates from the ball or is reflected from it. In other words the ball must be completely isolated from any other parts of the universe in terms of information.

Of course this would be impossible to do with something the size of a baseball, and this is precisely why a baseball always behaves as a macro object.

However, when we get into the operation of the brain, we already know that many of the components that are associated with the functions within the brain are themselves already at the quantum scale. So it should be obvious that no firm line can be drawn between the macro and quantum scales of the brain. It's not like baseball.

I mean, we could look at the overall tissues of the brain as a whole and say that this tissue framework is 'macro'. But that macro framework does not represent the 'quantum' activity that is affecting things that go on within the brain.

I personally feel that we already have enough knowledge of how the cells called neurons work that it's perfectly clearly they can indeed be affected by quantum events.

That's my personal conclusion based on what I know about neurobiology, chemistry, and physics. There's no question at all in my mind that the neurobiology of the brain can indeed be affected by quantum events. I've also heard other neurobiologists and M.D. confirm this view. Deepak Chopra M.D. is certianly one of them.

So for me, it's already a known scientific fact. I don't think any prominent neurobiologist would question this.

You're millage may vary.

Another thing to consider is Bose-Einstein Condensates, which tend to bring the quantum behavior into the macro world. There are reasons that this doesn't violate the 'information rule'. It is also possible that some of the fluids within and surrounding cells within the brain could potentially take on similar quantum behvior in an orchestrated fashion that would also bring quantum behavior into a genuine macro area of the brain via electrolytic processes.

So the potential is clearly there.

It would seem to me that it would be far more difficult to deny it than to support it. To deny it you'd have to draw some sort of definite line and show how that line always holds. But where would such a line even be drawn?

It makes far more sense to assume that there is no line, until one can be found. After all, the brain is ultimately made of electrons, atoms and free radicals. Those are all subatomic quantum entities. How would a definite line between the subtance of the brain and it's macro form be drawn?

How could such a line be drawn?

In a baseball it's easy to draw the line because the properties of the baseball that hold interest to us stem entirely from its macro form only. What's going on at the level of individual atoms within a baseball doesn't affect it's macro form.

Just like in the brain. Our thought processes (which are clearly very near the quantum events) do not affect the large-scale macro structure of the brain tissue. As an organ our brains appear like baseballs, but within them the activity associated with thought goes right down to the quantum level.

It's a non-brainer.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.

Well James,

What can I say?

Some people draw illogical conclusions based upon what they think another thinks instead of focusing on what has been written. My intent is to broaden my own understanding. I can thank you and everyone else outside of myself for new exposure(s) that lead to new forms of contemplation.

Terms like randomness and determinism do not represent a hinge point to the totality of my understanding, so I seek their foundational elements.

Your right, I thrive on misunderstanding... how else does it become understanding?

Who would answer 'no' when asked if we have free will?

That was the question posed.

This response was given earlier...



Or...

They know that their actions resulted from prior belief/experience and would like to successfully change their habits of mind in order to change their actions accordingly.

Or...

They are happy with their choices, and know why they made them.

Or...

Etc.



People who do believe in free will cannot either. What does the above statement even mean?



That is one way to look at it. It is not always all about blame or avoiding responsibility. That is a very closed-minded approach and assumes much about the person in question which cannot be logically concluded from just a dis-belief in free will.

While I have heard this line of reasoning before, it presupposes that the individual in question avoids accountability. What if the person wants to know where the thoughts originated from which led them to the action in question? What if they want to know why they made the choice? What if they accept their own responsibility in the matter, but want to know how to avoid making the same mistake in the future?

It is easily conceivable, and would indicate the opposite of what has been concluded here.

A belief in free will - itself - gives one no line of direction for this. Believing that 'I freely chose to do so and so...' does not focus on cause. Consciously identifying the prior determinants is the only purposeful way to change one's self.

Before the above statement is used as an example of free will...

Not everyone can do that.

my crepes were delicious and they behaved exactly according to the principles of quantum mechanics - but it did not prevent me from making them and eating them. in fact, it made it all work rather smoothly.

Would this be a reasonable application of Hume's guillotine?




How about a line between what IS what some think OUGHT to be?

What is = QM offers no definitive answers

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What some think ought to be = QM supports free will(beliefs/actions)

The above requires definitive answers.

If they don't believe in "free will" then what would make them think they could do that?

Sure sounds like a belief in "free will" to me.

I think a lot of people who denounce "free will" simply have no clue what they are ever talking about, because in the end they almost always make statements like the above which requires "free will".

It's an oxymoron to claim that there is no such thing as "free will" and then suggest that you're going to successfully change your habits.

That flies in the very face of what "free will" even means.

If you can successfully chose to change your habits, then you've exhibited "free will".

Here's your logic to support free will?

It is a nice thought. Here is the reality...

Not everyone can.

If free will = choice, then of course I believe in it.

If that choice is causally determined by mind states is the question . . .

No information has been put forth to create a conclusion for such an answer.

FMRI has shown progress at the macro level, some folks think the missing parts are micro, time and technology will tell.

Who is more open minded, the person who waits and holds believe in statements for conclusive evidence, or the person who jumps to believe in statements prior to establishing the line of reasoning to have a solid conclusion?

Hmm.

That's not my "logic" to support free will at all. You know very well that "logic" stems from sound empirical physics.

Moreover, I confess that I used poor wording in that sentence.

I should have said, "If you believe that can successfully chose to change your habits, then you've exhibited a belief in "free will".




I see you've edited out your orginal thoughts. I don't blame you for that.

Clearly based on the thought that you had originally posted before you edited it out you believe that only some people can have free will depending on whether or not they are able to recognize the elements required for it.

So based on that concept, then you believe in 'free will' you simply don't believe that everyone is able to excercise it.

That's a whole different ballgame right there.

I never claimed that people necessarily make wise choices or chose their actions to the best of their advantage. Just because a person has free will doesn't mean that they will use it wisely. Or even necessarily at all. They can "choose" to be dust in the wind.

i think therefore i choose.

-s1owhand

Do you mean to say that not everyone can change their habits or that not everyone can use their will?

In any case, I see that belief is involved in this assertion.

If someone says "I can't" then they are probably right. You probably can't do a thing if you don't believe you can. But if you can change your beliefs about what you can do, then maybe you can change what you can do.

Where shoes are concerned:

I think therefore I buy both pair because I can't choose.

If that choice is causally determined by mind states is the question . . .

If the "choice" is causally determined by mind states and nothing more than there never was a choice at all.

So based on this criteria I would suggest that my own experience is that I can indeed override my "mind states". I do it all the time.

My initial reaction may well up inside of me to respond a certain way (that would certianly be my current "mind state"). But I consciously CHOOSE not to react based on that current 'mind state' but instead to do something else.

That's the implementation of 'free will' choice.

If we did not have 'free will' choice we would not be able to chose to override our current mind states.

So by the definition you're giving above, then I think it's clear that we have free will without even bothering to get into the physics of how it's actually implemented by nature.

At least most of us do. We know that there are people who cannot control their emotions and actions. We refer to those people as having some sort of mental 'disorder' because it's not exhibited by the vast majority of humans.

The vast majority of humans appear to have "free will" choice to overcome 'mind states'.

In fact, we've even invented the word "willpower" to discribe this very human ability. We have recognized that we have a power of 'free will'.

I don't think there would have ever even been a question on this matter had it not been for the advent of the Newtonian Classical Clockworks phsyics that appeared to so perfectly decribe the universe.

It was only with the advent of classical physics that 'free will' truly become rigoriously questioned.

We now know that Newtonian determinism was a false premise. It simply doesn't hold at the foundation of physical manifestation.

Newtonian physics is almost like a religion that needs to be cast aside, now that it has been shown to be false.

a lot of people choose that option.

Now there's an example of free will, free enterprize, and free checking.

Newtonian physics is not false, merely a true useful approximation.
F=ma will still solve a lot of problems. Just not all of them.

F=ma

Newton was right on with that equation. It has indeed proven to be the most useful equation ever.

Plus those same letters can still hold in a quantum theory equation:

Free will = microscopic acausality

You are right, I truly do not know if pre-determinism or free will are the truth, or a combination of the two. I am stating my belief, or hypothesis, which is what one does in science when they are trying to figure something out. I then attempted to state evidence supporting my belief in pre-determination.

I believe there is a reason for everything under the sun. If I were to go out tomorrow, and learn self-hypnosis or yoga to control my bodily functions due to the post you just wrote, in my opinion, that would be a cause and effect relationship. Your suggesting to me that I go learn these things was the cause for my considering to go. If the sum of other environmental effects in my life did not counter-act that suggestion, it's effect would be to go learn those things. If someone wants to call that a choice, or free will, then I see their point. I see it differently. The sum of all experiences in my life were the reason for me going to learn...cause and effect, pre-determined.

Ok, dont argue with me then. I am only stating my belief, and any evidence that I can that supports my belief, or hypothesis. I am not stating any fact, or truth.

In my opinion, there is no point in arguing over theories or hypothesis, because that is all they are, theories. As scientists, all we can do is try to support our theories the best we can, and try to gather enough evidence to eventually agree on something that we consider truth and fact.

by the way, when you use the phrase, dear or darling grrrrr, it comes off as very condescending to me, and I would politely ask that you not do it again.

This makes no sense.

My original post was written like the following, except I have now added emphasis where it needed.

Not everyone can identify and understand the determinants which directly affect their outlook and behaviours. That statement still stands and it completely denies free will.

To conclude that this displays a belief in free will is non-sensical. The will cannot have determinants and be free from determinism. That is a logical contradiction in terms.

What are you trying to say?



Uh...No! I believe in a determined will.

I also believe that I recognize an illogical train of thought, based upon the above... and further supported below.



What are you trying to say?