3 ms·

I unfortunately don't think it makes any good points -- just about every one of its arguments is fatally flawed, sadly. With respect to consciousness being tie

I unfortunately don't think it makes any good points -- just about every one of its arguments is fatally flawed, sadly. With respect to consciousness being tied to quantum physics -- There doesn't appear to be any shape that matter can be sculpted into that allows that matter to "freely choose" the outcome of a quantum experiment. (Change the distribution yes, but not select particular outcomes from a wide distribution). Free will doesn't emerge from quantum randomness -- if it did, it would be analogous to setting up a two-slit experiment where the photon is capable of freely choosing to go through the left slit every time, under the power of a conscious spirit and in defiance of the predictions of quantum probabilities. Our brains do not have this power either. Whatever the quantum field fluctuations are occurring inside our brains, our rational thought is at best recording it, most likely is robust to it, most likely not formed by it, and certainly not consciously selecting particular favoured quantum outcomes.

hliyan 6y ago
> it would be analogous to setting up a two-slit experiment where the photon is capable of freely choosing to go through the left slit every time Not what I meant though. What I meant was that free will / consciousness (not sure if they're two separate things or aspects of the same thing) is an emergent property of quantum fluctuations, similar to wetness being an emergent property of the H2O molecule. It's a bit hand-wavy yes (if it weren't, I'd be publishing a paper right now). The hypothesis (and it's just a hypothesis) is that if quantum fluctuations are all entirely independent, then there is no chance of any emergent properties. But if fluctuations do interact (i.e. proximity in space and/or time affects each other's probabilities), then properties can emerge. Perhaps what we perceive as consciousness / free will is just one such property.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Hmm... If consciousness is caused by interacting quantum fluctuations, I'd think a watermelon has just as much chance of being conscious as a human brain does. The level of complexity and interaction across many scales is no different in a brain than in a watermelon. But if you think a brain is more likely to be conscious than a watermelon, then it's most likely the consciousness comes from one of the properties specific to the brain -- like its computational structure that couples sensory inputs, prediction, world modeling, hypotheticals, and modeling itself and other agents. These are probably software-like things that are classical in nature.
  - tsegratis 6y ago
    I would suggest both -- simplify quantum fluctuations to a random num generator -- if that just sits by itself spewing out numbers (like a watermelon), I agree with you But add his suggestion to yours -- a random source + the ability to reason -- think of a robot you give a gun + reasoning partially based on a source outside your control -- here randomness Does that robot careen through NY, or hold reasoned debate on human rights & free will. Such a robot, I think, would be considered a free agent, and have free will (for most definitions of free will). I suppose we'd maybe want to add the rule the robot is consistent -- it doesn't flip randomly through extremes, even though its total path is fully random -- reasoning+randomness Personally I would apply that to humanity -- some source gives us agency (decision making separate to the source that originated us). Quantum mechanics is interesting, because it suggests maybe this separation is randomness due to lack of definition -- i.e. our source can fully define everything, and yet our separation of independent decision making makes our interactions meaningful. Which has some really beautiful conclusions -- notably life and decisions have worth, etc, etc ------ Loads more to say. But this is not the place

hliyan 6y ago

> it would be analogous to setting up a two-slit experiment where the photon is capable of freely choosing to go through the left slit every time Not what I meant though. What I meant was that free will / consciousness (not sure if they're two separate things or aspects of the same thing) is an emergent property of quantum fluctuations, similar to wetness being an emergent property of the H2O molecule. It's a bit hand-wavy yes (if it weren't, I'd be publishing a paper right now). The hypothesis (and it's just a hypothesis) is that if quantum fluctuations are all entirely independent, then there is no chance of any emergent properties. But if fluctuations do interact (i.e. proximity in space and/or time affects each other's probabilities), then properties can emerge. Perhaps what we perceive as consciousness / free will is just one such property.

jbay808 6y ago
Hmm... If consciousness is caused by interacting quantum fluctuations, I'd think a watermelon has just as much chance of being conscious as a human brain does. The level of complexity and interaction across many scales is no different in a brain than in a watermelon. But if you think a brain is more likely to be conscious than a watermelon, then it's most likely the consciousness comes from one of the properties specific to the brain -- like its computational structure that couples sensory inputs, prediction, world modeling, hypotheticals, and modeling itself and other agents. These are probably software-like things that are classical in nature.
- tsegratis 6y ago
  I would suggest both -- simplify quantum fluctuations to a random num generator -- if that just sits by itself spewing out numbers (like a watermelon), I agree with you But add his suggestion to yours -- a random source + the ability to reason -- think of a robot you give a gun + reasoning partially based on a source outside your control -- here randomness Does that robot careen through NY, or hold reasoned debate on human rights & free will. Such a robot, I think, would be considered a free agent, and have free will (for most definitions of free will). I suppose we'd maybe want to add the rule the robot is consistent -- it doesn't flip randomly through extremes, even though its total path is fully random -- reasoning+randomness Personally I would apply that to humanity -- some source gives us agency (decision making separate to the source that originated us). Quantum mechanics is interesting, because it suggests maybe this separation is randomness due to lack of definition -- i.e. our source can fully define everything, and yet our separation of independent decision making makes our interactions meaningful. Which has some really beautiful conclusions -- notably life and decisions have worth, etc, etc ------ Loads more to say. But this is not the place