31 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrQuantum mechanics applied to neuroscience does not show anything at all about the will or attention or consciousness.
Where did you get the idea that Planck's length delimits the physical domain? If anything, it merely delimits the classical or classically measurable (i.e., observable in principle) domain, but quantum effects are still physical effects.
(1) That brain processes instantiate conscious states does not entail that conscious states require brain proces l domain is not causally closed, and hence that the law of conservation of energy is false.
Are you asserting this based upon the assumption that quantum physics makes no claim to ontological completeness? That is, quantum physics treats an agent's “free choices” as the input variables of experimental protocols, rather than mechanically determined consequences of brain action - doing so for pragmatic reasons - and therefore quantum physics says nothing intrinsic about the will or attention or consciousness?
If so, consider the following:
"...if in the von Neumann formulation one does seek to determine the cause of the “free choice” within the representation of the physical brain of the chooser, one finds that one is systematically blocked from determining the cause of the choice by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which asserts that the locations and velocities of, say, the calcium ions, are simultaneous unknowable to the precision needed to determine what the choice will be. Thus one is faced not merely with a practical unknowability of the causal origin of the “free choices,” but with an unknowability in principle that stems from the uncertainty principle itself, which lies at the base of quantum mechanics."
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/H.Stapp/Stapp-PTB6.htm#_Toc73278107
__________
It would seem that treating an agent's “free choices” as the input variables of experimental protocols isn't simply a matter of pragmatism, but a fundamental assertion about reality itself, e.g., "...one is faced not merely with a practical unknowability of the causal origin of the “free choices,” but with an unknowability in principle that stems from the uncertainty principle itself, which lies at the base of quantum mechanics." Wouldn't it be true to say, then, that quantum mechanics does show something intrinsic about the will? Especially considering that the will is therein considered separate from the mechanical functioning of the brain and fundamentally non-physical?
Or are such conclusions examples of the over-extension of quantum theory to phenomena it wasn't meant to describe?
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo-one has mentioned buddhism.
Suppose I choke on a jawbreaker tomorrow and die. Can somebody offer reasons to think there is something about me, the person I am, that will persist beyond this point of natural death? Suppose I concede that life after death is broadly possible; but are there any reasons that make the idea plausible?
----------
Also, I was reading a work that mor ...[text shortened]... e?
(2) Do we have any persons here who believe in life after death but find theism implausible?
Maybe my understanding of the philosophy/religion is wrong but I thought that Buddhists do not believe in any supernatural 'God' (hense non-theistic) but that they do believe in a non-material soul/spirit and life after death in some sort of limbo followed by re-incarnation.
Does this count as non-theistic belief in life after death?
--- Penguin
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by clearlightQuantum physics is interesting, no doubt, as are its implications. Personally, though, I'm not sure I buy any of it. IMO, the biblical version of the cosmos is still the most scientifically tenable. That is, I think the Buddhist character of quantum physics is severely limited to the micro world of particle physics, and cannot be extrapolated to the universe as whole.
Epiphinehas'
I am a big fan of henry Stapp and also David Bohm - I agree with much of what you have written although we part company when you talk about God. Buddhist philosophy accounts (with rigourous precision) all aspects of Stapp's and Bohm's work. Buddha got there 2,500 years before them.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI have gone round and round on that topic with knightmeister. I still don't understand what people who have a concept of free will similar to what yours apparently is, really mean. As far as I can determine there are really only three possibilities:
The center of the spiritual in humans (as well as in God) is self-determination, also called freedom and creativity. We are not things, but have the capacity to be self-determined to a significant degree.
1. our choices are based on a causal mechanism that results in our choices being cause by the configuration of our brains in combination with past inputs (experiences, memories etc), with possibly some totally random input (via quantum physics etc).
2. our choices are made or heavily influenced by an external non-physical entity (eg God).
3. our choices originate in a non-physical entity (possibly what some people call the soul) but do not operate via past inputs or any known rule. ie they are essentially random.
You appear to be claiming 3. but not realising the consequences.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell obviously you must first define or understand what you mean by "I".
Suppose I choke on a jawbreaker tomorrow and die. Can somebody offer reasons to think there is something about me, the person I am, that will persist beyond this point of natural death?
To help illustrate the problem, if you experienced brain death but your body was kept alive on a machine, would you still exist?
Exactly what percentage of brain cells must die?
If your brain was divided into two, and both halved gained conciousness, then what?
When you are asleep or otherwise more or less unconscious, do you still exist?
Does the person you were yesterday still exist?
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI couldn't begin to explain free will. You're right, though, it definitely isn't random.
I have gone round and round on that topic with knightmeister. I still don't understand what people who have a concept of free will similar to what yours apparently is, really mean. As far as I can determine there are really only three possibilities:
1. our choices are based on a causal mechanism that results in our choices being cause by the configuratio ...[text shortened]... hey are essentially random.
You appear to be claiming 3. but not realising the consequences.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by PenguinAlthough I believe technically it isn't theistic belief, I think that most people express the duality theism/atheism as a proxy for irrelligious/religious.
No-one has mentioned buddhism.
Maybe my understanding of the philosophy/religion is wrong but I thought that Buddhists do not believe in any supernatural 'God' (hense non-theistic) but that they do believe in a non-material soul/spirit and life after death in some sort of limbo followed by re-incarnation.
Does this count as non-theistic belief in life after death?
--- Penguin
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am yet to find anyone who can explain free will as used in the way you did. You implied that the cause of a given choice is not a direct product of a persons physical construction nor his past experiences. Now you say it is not random. Yet you seem to think that it is important that there is some supernatural entity that does somehow make those choices. How can those choices be anything but random? Even if they are not random, if they are not based on the past, then they are essentially unpredictable and therefore indistinguishable from random.
I couldn't begin to explain free will. You're right, though, it definitely isn't random.
You appear to dismiss quantum mechanics too easily. There are some very real and very important implications of quantum mechanics which I think most people don't even begin to comprehend.
31 Jul 08
Just a thought, twhitehead: free will may be conceived easily using as example the chess studies. You are free to analyse each position as you please -but on a specific 8x8 chessboard, with specific chessmen in a specific position. Now you are free to choose the plan and the tactics and the very algorithm that you consider best for that exact position;
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by black beetleBut when you finally make a move, to what can we attribute that particular move?
Just a thought, twhitehead: free will may be conceived easily using as example the chess studies. You are free to analyse each position as you please -but on a specific 8x8 chessboard, with specific chessmen in a specific position. Now you are free to choose the plan and the tactics and the very algorithm that you consider best for that exact position;
1. Your experience, combined with processing in your brain.
2. A physical process in your brain that worked it out without any prior input (how could that work?).
3. God.
4. A non-physical entity that makes random moves.
5. Other?
31 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAccording to quantum physics the cause of an agent's choice is fundamentally unknowable. The agent's choice is a "free choice" in that it cannot be accurately quantified by mechanical consequences of brain action or past experience, etc. There is no denial that a person's choice is in some way influenced by these various classically described processes, but the agent's modus operandi, if you will, is for all intensive purposes beyond predictability or finding out, and therefore an agent's choice is treated as an essentially unknowable input variable by quantum physics, i.e., the scientist's free will itself is treated as a part of the phenomena being studied, since the choices he makes regarding how he studies the phenomenon themselves effect what reality he will find. Thus, your line of questioning meant to probe the exact causes for any particular choice must remain unanswered in perpetuity, according to the uncertainty principle.
But when you finally make a move, to what can we attribute that particular move?
1. Your experience, combined with processing in your brain.
2. A physical process in your brain that worked it out without any prior input (how could that work?).
3. God.
4. A non-physical entity that makes random moves.
5. Other?
EDIT: What is unclear to me is whether or not it is even justified to use the implications of quantum physics beyond the sub-atomic realm.