Does Free Will Exist?

[J.C.MacSwell]

No, it's still not; just because we don't have the knowledge does not mean that the knowledge is not there to be had. Since we will "certainly never know" the details results in the appearance of free will, but is still not free will proper.

 

So currently our only hope for free will is quantum uncertainty (as opposed to just a lack of knowledge), but while that means it might be "free", the "will" might still be an illusion.

[Kyrisch]

So currently our only hope for free will is quantum uncertainty (as opposed to just a lack of knowledge), but while that means it might be "free", the "will" might still be an illusion.

 

Not might, but definitely; quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this context. That is, unless you think there is a mechanism of the mind which can willfully manipulate the outcomes of indeterminate quantum states, and then that affecting such low-level things could emerge into some sort of resolved decision in the way we conceptualize the idea of decision-making...

[padren]

So currently our only hope for free will is quantum uncertainty (as opposed to just a lack of knowledge), but while that means it might be "free", the "will" might still be an illusion.

 

Which would at most render our choices random at a quantum level - not allow for free will. Though, it does not appear our brains operate in a fashion where the circuitry is impacted by quantum factors - the design of our circuitry (through evolution, distribution of mass since the big bang) is.

[iNow]

it does not appear our brains operate in a fashion where the circuitry is impacted by quantum factors

 

OT, but can you support? I've heard arguments both for and against suppositions like this, and am curious as to what is informing your perspective as stated in the quote.

[AGSniper]

Not might, but definitely; quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this context. That is, unless you think there is a mechanism of the mind which can willfully manipulate the outcomes of indeterminate quantum states, and then that affecting such low-level things could emerge into some sort of resolved decision in the way we conceptualize the idea of decision-making...

 

Agreed with Kyrisch. Quantum mechanics is the "probability" of something going to happen therefore even if our "decision making" mechanism information was somehow inputted and transferred via a quantized particle it's only a "probability" that it will get transferred in which we have no control over.

[padren]

OT, but can you support? I've heard arguments both for and against suppositions like this, and am curious as to what is informing your perspective as stated in the quote.

 

Um, actually I don't, it's mostly hearsay. Intuitively I find the idea of a quantum impact unlikely considering the nature of the mechanics, but that's nothing to go on.

[iNow]

Cool that. Thanks for coming back and clarifying. I've heard arguments both ways, but most seem to suggest that quantum influences in the brain are negligible if present at all. Cheers.

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

[bascule]

OT, but can you support? I've heard arguments both for and against suppositions like this, and am curious as to what is informing your perspective as stated in the quote.

 

See Max Tegmark's paper:

 

Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

 

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10-13–10-20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10-3–10-1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

 

I think it's also interesting to note that the only reputable physicist who chose to advocate quantum mind mumbo jumbo (Roger Penrose) chose to do so in the form of a book instead of publishing a peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject.

[john5746]

 

I think this video is relevant to the topic. I can't say that I completely understand, but I will try to explain. Dennett argues that we shouldn't even want free will proper, but even though we may not have had a choice in that exact situation, we can improve our competency to do better in similar situations. So, you miss the foul shot and you practice more. You kill someone and you are punished so you don't do a similar action again. He floats above the meat of the issue, but it did get me to look at this in a different way.

[GutZ]

Philosphy loves dancing around ideas lol