Physics, Brain and Free Will

[socrat44]

  Physics, Brain and  Free Will
======================
 
 The whole universe ( including human brain ) is acting out according to the laws of physics.
  Physics.
a)  according to Newton's / classical laws the universe is deterministic
     ( there is no room  for a free will)
b) according to quantum physics (The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law )
  the universe (quantum particles in universe) obey statistical laws
(there is possibility for a free will )

Brain.
brain works on foundation of dualism :
a) consciousness
b) unconsciousness
#
a)  consciousness  obeys  classical laws
b) unconsciousness obeys quantum laws
==========================

[zetreque]

I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe because I'm not sure what your definition of unconsciousness is.

[socrat44]

I don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe because I'm not sure what your definition of unconsciousness is.

unconsciousness = subconsciousness

[zetreque]

I don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe because I'm not sure what your definition of unconsciousness is.

unconsciousness = subconsciousness

Ok I am still confused.

The act of breathing or your heart beating is subconscious so is that quantum physics? Is it really a dualism or a spectrum?

[socrat44]

According to scientific research, Conscious Mind makes up less  than 10 percent
of  total brain function and more than  90 percent belongs to Subconscious Mind .

Therefore talking about ''free will '' we need to think about two levels of deciding
a) free will on conscious level
b) free will on subconscious level
c) what is interaction between them
=========================

[zetreque]

If you are talking about what I think you are talking about, the 10% brain usage is a myth. Please cite some literature on that.

https://www.wired.com/2014/07/everythin ... 0-seconds/

[someguy1]

 
 
 The whole universe ( including human brain ) is acting out according to the laws of physics.
 

But this is not true.

What do we mean by the laws of physics? We might mean one of two things:

* The human-defined laws of physics as currently understood. These laws are constantly changing, from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein and so forth.

* The "ultimate" laws of the universe, which may or may not exist. Perhaps there are none.

So you can't say with certainty that the universe obeys any ultimate laws. And regarding the human-discovered laws, the best you can say is that we have decent approximations valid locally.

I apologize in advance if you addressed these points, but my little brain throws an exception whenever a post starts off with something that I know to be untrue.

ps -- I went back and read the rest of your post. You are wrong about this conscious/unconscious thing. Those are abstract concepts used in some types of psychology, but they have no specific referent in neurology. As someone already mentioned, there are biological processes that we have control of (raising your hand above your head, shouting at the tv, etc.) and processes that we don't have control over (our heartbeat, etc.) Science has the concept of the autonomic nervous system and there are subdivisions within that too.

You are confusing psychology with neurology, physics with metaphysics.

[Inchworm]

Therefore talking about ''free will '' we need to think about two levels of deciding
a) free will on conscious level
b) free will on subconscious level
c) what is interaction between them

Hi Socrat,

Your question is easy to answer if we consider that consciousness is due to the perception of an unexpected change by the mind: the one that is produced by the environment, or the one that is produced by the mind. The free will feeling would then be due to our mind's information suffering random changes, so there would not be what you call subconscious free will. Subconsciousness would be due to our automatism not having to be changed when no change happens in our environment. When we drive for instance, we don't have to think about what we do, we can think of anything else, but as soon as an unexpected change on the road strikes our eyes, we get aware of what is going on, because our mind faces an uncertain response and it needs to give one rapidly, so it needs to stay concentered on what is going to happen next. Free will is then about what we are going to do even if the outcome is not certain, it is linked to the feeling of taking a chance, but that feeling doesn't need a dangerous situation to be perceived, anytime we fell good about what is going to happen when we take a chance is also about free will.

[zetreque]

One could argue that having to avoid an object on a road is not free will. You are just acting according to the situation the universe laid out and your mindset relying on past experiences.

Driving however a good example of the spectrum of a task going between subconscious and conscious.

[Inchworm]

If we define free will as taking a chance a new move will work better than an old one even if no response has ever been perceived from it, then I think that avoiding an unexpected object is still part of free will even if we don't have the time to try anything else if it doesn't work. Of course, if nothing urges, we can try anything that doesn't hurt and see if it works better this way. That's what scientific research is about. We take chances in everyday situations all the time, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't really matter as long as we have the time to get back to our usual way. In fact, I think our mind works the same as the evolution of species as far as change is concerned: I think it has adapted the mutation/selection principle to its own time scale.

[zetreque]

How do you define a "new move"?
How do you know the new move is free will?

[Inchworm]

I define a new move as a move that we have never tempted before, and it is free in the sense that it might or might not work properly. What it is free from is thus being part of what we already know. We feel free of creating unknown things, not to execute known ones. When we execute known things, we don't even have to think about them to begin with. Of course, we can feel free of changing known things, but it is the same as tempting an unknown move.

[socrat44]

. Of course, we can feel free of changing known things,
but it is the same as tempting an unknown move.

a) maybe in 99% we can change known things by logical consciousness.
b) but sometime (sometime) the things are changing
'' as tempting an unknown movie.''- --- subconsciously .
=========================
 

[Inchworm]

If consciousness is only the perception of a change, then logic is only the perception of the new possibilities the mind is actually weighting, and those new possibilities are only the result of random changes occurring to our ideas. That reduces our consciousness feeling to the way the device that triggers randomness in the brain works. Our mind can chose a random number at will, so how does it do that? It has to have the idea first, and it has to proceed randomly. It can think of choosing a random number by chance just because it already knows about the possibility and it wants to test it, or it can think of it because it has just heard or seen the possibility and it also wants to test it too. When we try our luck, it is always because we want to test something we never tried before in case it would be profitable, but if we already tried it many times without chance and we plan to try it again, like buying a lottery ticket each week for instance, then it is because we are crazy. :0)

To produce randomness, do we have a specific device like a random function or is it simply due to the way memory works? If it is a random function for instance, what triggers it? Is it at "on" all the time? It certainly is at "on" when we dream for instance, so why not all the time. But if it is so, it could also be due to the way memory works.

[socrat44]

To produce randomness, do we have a specific device like a random function or
is it simply due to the way memory works? If it is a random function for instance,
what triggers it?
Is it at "on" all the time?
It certainly is at "on" when we dream for instance, so why not all the time.
But if it is so, it could also be due to the way memory works.

Human brain works on two levels:
a) usually consciousness (logical) system  and
b) rarely unconsciousness system which later changes as logical.
*
In his last autobiographic article, Einstein wrote:
” . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form”

In book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  Michael Talbot
on page 160 explained this situation in such way:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain ’
*
Evan Walker wrote:
“... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics.”
===================================

[BadgerJelly]

There is a reason phenomenology exists.

Pursue the problem of psychology. Define neurological knowledge as seperate yet useful for psychological investigations. Don't confuse physical science as a means to create unshakable meaning.

A method in pursuit of the ultimate perfection of objectivity is NEVER going to come to an understanding of subjectivity. It is strutcured purposefully to do the exact opposite.

[Inchworm]

” . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form”

I agree with that: it dovetails my idea that mind has to produces randomness in order to invent new stuff.

In book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  Michael Talbot
on page 160 explained this situation in such way:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain ’

If consciousness is the result of our neurons detecting a change in the information they propagate, and if that change can happen inside the brain as well as outside, then it has to be the brain itself that produces the change, and it can only produce it randomly otherwise it could predict the future, so this way, it would in fact be the brain that produces consciousness.

“... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of consciousness must provide the basis of an improved understanding of quantum mechanics.”

If consciousness is the perception of a random process, then it certainly has something to do with quantum randomness since both processes have something to do with the way things adapt to a change. The best example is the evolution of species: if their genes would not suffer random mutations, they could not adapt to a change in their environment. The same way, to detect a particle, we need to change its direction or speed, and it cannot find the right way without trying different directions and speeds randomly.

[socrat44]

[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=328908#p328908]
If consciousness is the perception of a random process,
then it certainly has something to do with quantum randomness
since both processes have something to do with the way things adapt to a change.
The best example is the evolution of species:
if their genes would not suffer random mutations,
they could not adapt to a change in their environment.
The same way, to detect a particle, we need to change its direction or speed,
and it cannot find the right way without trying different directions
and speeds randomly.

About quantum randomness
===
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

It means that by quantum randomness it is impossible to create
Intellect Existence during 13 - 15 billions of years after ‘big bang’.
===========================

[Inchworm]

Evolution is a progressive process where the possibilities need to be selected as soon as they are created. The monkey has to make a sound first, and that sound has to be selected by the environment right away. If the sound answers a need, then it is remembered, if not, then it is forgotten. The probability to make a sound that will be selected is then the same each time, and if the monkey is intelligent enough, he will create the sounds himself randomly so as to produce them at a faster rate and thus increase the possibilities.

When we detect a particle, we automatically change its speed or its direction, and it has to try many random ones before the right one is produced. During that time, it resists to the change, and that's what we call its mass. We're looking for a use for quantum randomness without realizing that it already has one since the beginning of times. Quantum computers are nothing else than what we call imagination. We can find a faster way through a problem because we can already use randomness. The difference is that computers can think faster than us. The problem is that the environment cannot select the possibilities faster for them than for us.

[socrat44]

Evolution is a progressive process . . .

The monkey has to make a sound first,
and that sound has to be selected by the environment right away.

Take the monkey as a corpuscular.
Sound as waves
Is the monkey intelligent enough to create the sounds himself ?

Is the quantum particle intelligent enough to create the waves itself ?
( The problem of dualism of physics )

Is Evolution a progressive process . . .?
===============

[Inchworm]

Intelligence is nothing special, it's only the result of the brain being able to change its ideas randomly, and to only remember the changes that have been useful to its survival. That's exactly what the species and the particles do to survive to a change in their environment, and we don't call that process intelligence. Either we could attribute intelligence to atoms, or stop thinking we are so intelligent. By the way, that idea is stupid, so I suggest that you don't buy it if you want to stay intelligent! :0)

[socrat44]

Intelligence is nothing special, . . .

By the way, that idea is stupid,
so I suggest that you don't buy it if you want to stay intelligent! :0)

Many times i buy things what their price are bigger than their value
==================

[Inchworm]

Unless we spend more money than what we have, speculation is a good way to improve our life. The problem is to go on buying stuff that didn't work. It doesn't matter if it's only lottery tickets for instance, but it does if it's all you have. The random function of the mind comes with a verification tool that is meant not to reiterate a move that hurts, but for some people, that tool isn't sensible enough.