Activity

jakelafort posted an update 5 years, 6 months ago

Robert, i don’t see that you have explained your thoughts on how injecting quantum randomness is a path to free will. In fact the consensus is that randomness itself gives no freedom. We would think it inane to ascribe choice when a paramecium dodges left of an amoeba to avoid being consumed. We conceive of their world as utterly mechanistic. Assuming choice is less a reflex than any other behavior is not established. There is lots of evidence that human brains that have stopped communicating between hemispheres continue to tell stories about their behavior even though those stories may not be at all related to what happened. Some of those damaged brains tell amusing stories to explain their choices. The conscious deliberation part may be after the fact rendering the word CHOICE meaningless. Understanding consciousness is a work in progress that appears to be in its infancy.

Can’t find same article i read earlier but it indicated that in a recent experiment the entanglement occurred at a level one tenth diameter of human hair (or some such relatable scale) entangled in a deterministic way and that Heisenberg principle involving observation is inapplicable. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-05/aaft-doa050321.php

I think the free will debate will ultimately be scrapped. While it encompasses a myriad of real issues in and of itself it is not possible for biological organisms and perhaps not possible under any circumstances.
- _Robert_ replied 5 years, 6 months ago
  We would think it inane to ascribe choice when a paramecium dodges left of an amoeba to avoid being consumed.
  
  Certainly a salt molecule does not have that choice and not all parameciums will choose to dodge left given identical conditions. Those that do will pass their genes on more readily. I propose that randomness (perhaps it be white electrical noise present in our nervous systems) could offer an advantage to biological systems by generating variations of choices and even new ideas.
  - _Robert_ replied 5 years, 6 months ago
    BTW, I considers survival in an ever changing environment analogous to cracking a ‘survival’ code. I have tested the security of software using a random number generator as a seed into cracking our system.
  - jakelafort replied 5 years, 6 months ago
    Isn’t the ‘randomness’ necessary to confer a survival advantage the variation brought about through mutations and genetic and epigenetic changes? In fact it seems to me that randomness might defeat or contravene evolution.
    - _Robert_ replied 5 years, 6 months ago
      
      Yes, I think mutations are just another example of life harnessing randomness to it’s advantage. Without randomness one would stick to the main thread branch…how boring would that be, LOL. It brings new possibilities to a an otherwise deterministic path.
      
      jakelafort replied 5 years, 6 months ago
      
      Quite possibly i haven’t a clue but i am asserting the constituents or building blocks of life will replicate and given identical conditions, identical stimuli will react in an identical way. If this is true does it follow that as life evolves and complexity increases that randomness through some quantum mechanism occurs? I would not think so. Those building blocks ought to be subject to the same quantum forces, if any. Instead complexity drives the variation by testing new models that react in a deterministic manner.