Is this a final proof of free will?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

orch OR is related to penroses "objective-collapse theory" which is what I was struggling to communicate.
from wiki:
Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][6] Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[7] The latter is based on Penrose's objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the spacetime curvature of these states in the universe's fine-scale structure.

I'm familiar with Orch OR and related claims - I was quite interested when they first came out, and spent some time investigating it, but it doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny, especially the biology. Have a look at Bandyopadhyay's original paper claimed to be the basis for Orch OR and see for yourself ("We have carried out several tricky state-of-the-art experiments..."! plus talk of testing the optical properties of a microtubule!). There are multiple criticisms of Orch OR on a variety of grounds, but really you only have to read the original papers to see that it's fanciful speculation on flaky grounds.

Carroll is obviously more a fan of what he thinks is correct which is the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics but on the second lex fridman podcast with him in it he said that OR is one of the ones that he thinks could be true.

I'd like to see a link to that, because in the Lex Fridman 'Round 2' podcast (#47), Lex asks him if QM can help us understand the mind and consciousness and he says, "Not really, minds are pretty classical; I don't think ... phenomena like entanglement are crucial to the way the mind works". He's made similar statements elsewhere, so I'm curious to hear where he says different...

... the orchestration part of it is when a system like our brain creates a stable environment for certain processes in reality to occur that normally would be too random and unstable without some kind of ordered system which could allow for different uses of quantum forces.

All forces are quantum (with the possible exception of gravity); but assuming that happens, so what? what 'different uses of quantum forces'? how does that explain anything?

so we can test this with things such as trying to create an AGI with this theory and even in trying to understand complex systems such as stars and blackholes, which is a very very far out thought but still something that is potentially testable. and what I mean by far out thought is the possibility of stars and blackholes having some kind of consciousness and maybe even mind to them which might be some kind of way higher dimensions of information can be created, as in, stars acting as some kind of device which creates simulated worlds... since we as humans can already do this in a small way.

Why would stars or black holes have consciousness? how would it arise? how could they perceive and process information? how could they respond? What is a 'higher dimension of information'? how could one be created? How would a star create a simulated world? Why?

No offence, but it sounds like fantasy fiction...

 

[SelfSim]

All forces are quantum (with the possible exception of gravity); but assuming that happens, so what? what 'different uses of quantum forces'? how does that explain anything?

I don't think the term 'quantum forces' is particularly helpful there, but Stuart Kauffman has spoken about experiments where 1000 organic molecules were tested for their quantum behaviours and they found that approximately half were ordered (eg: DNA/RNA, etc) and (approx) half were critical .. (only a few were chaotic). The critical ones have fractal wavefunctions .. they don’t know why, just yet (see below Youtube link around the 15-20 min mark, I think?).

The idea is that the brain's neural network, seems to behave as a dynamic system poised on criticality. He reckons they've calculated that there's a 1 in a hundred million chance of thinking changing the results of a 2 slit experiment. He then says it works experimentally (barely .. but it still works!). Non-locality testing of this, is thus also experimentally possible.
(He also points out that the even the experimenters don't believe their own results yet, what's more .. )

He proposes its possible that quantum variables might be capable of measuring eachother too, which leads to a Panpsychism type of thing, which he then says is not impossible, because it can be tested. (Which, he admits. is his 'stretch objective' claim).

I'm not sure what to make of all this myself, too ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The idea is that the brain's neural network, seems to behave as a dynamic system poised on criticality. He reckons they've calculated that there's a 1 in a hundred million chance of thinking changing the results of a 2 slit experiment. He then says it works experimentally (barely .. but it still works!). Non-locality testing of this, is thus also experimentally possible.
(He also points out that the even the experimenters don't believe their own results yet, what's more .. )

It's been known for a while that the brain functions 'on the edge of chaos' - by neurons firing classically. Thinking gives every appearance of being a physical information processing at classical scales - we can measure the tiny summation of electromagnetic radiation it produces, and it wouldn't surprise me if small-scale quantum optimizations occur in neuronal or synaptic functions, but it seems like the most unlikely system to support large-scale quantum effects. I'm highly sceptical of the idea that brain activity per se can directly influence distant quantum events, but if he can reliably demonstrate it, good luck to him.

He proposes its possible that quantum variables might be capable of measuring eachother too, which leads to a Panpsychism type of thing, which he then says is not impossible, because it can be tested. (Which, he admits. is his 'stretch objective' claim).

I don't know what he means by quantum variables 'measuring' each other; a quantum measurement is generally accepted to occur when quantum systems interact and subsequently become entangled with the environment (decoherence).

But again, if he wants to do the work to test his hypotheses, then it's fine with me.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Think about it, when you`re having a massage the only reason it feels so good is because it`s random, right, so a machine couldn`t do the same thing, don`t that prove that the randomness in the movement of hands prove that the person has free will?

What is random? The hands are guided by another individual with free will, right? So the placement isn't random. You simply don't know where the hands will go, so perhaps it feels random to you, but it's not. Simply not knowing what will happen doesn't give you what you're looking for here.

 

[SelfSim]

.. but it seems like the most unlikely system to support large-scale quantum effects. I'm highly sceptical of the idea that brain activity per se can directly influence distant quantum events, but if he can reliably demonstrate it, good luck to him.

Yeah .. I agree .. but I think the idea is, nonetheless, to take the idea and see where it goes .. and if such an experiment tests out, then one would have to entertain the idea that conscious intent may be associated with measurement(?)

I don't know what he means by quantum variables 'measuring' each other; a quantum measurement is generally accepted to occur when quantum systems interact and subsequently become entangled with the environment (decoherence). But again, if he wants to do the work to test his hypotheses, then it's fine with me.

He says: 'There's a theory (about? decoherence): that if you open a quantum system, there's an acausal loss of phase information because the quantum variables in the environment, 'measure' the quantum variables in the system' (eg: fermions exchanging bosons in force interactions) .. which is testable when one asks: 'can quantum variables measuring one another get trapped in a subset of states' (the latter of which, in turn, is a question based on the quantum zeno effect). If this then tests out, then looking from the viewpoint of consciousness being associated with measurement, (where measurement is necessary and sufficient for consciousness), then we'd have to at least consider the possibility that quantum variables might actually be 'measuring' eachother(?)
(Whilst not suggesting that particles are conscious in any of this, however).

Meh .. as you say (figuratively): .. 'go ahead and test away' .. (we'll sit and watch what happens, eh?)

 

[Neogaia777]

I think many should closely examine the conscious intent on why they want to insist that there will is truly free, etc...

Or that anything else here is, etc...

Cause I don't think it is, or really ever truly was, or will ever truly will be, etc, except for only maybe, only maybe when you are truly free from it maybe, etc, which is still a pretty big "maybe" even then maybe, etc...

Anyway...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... looking from the viewpoint of consciousness being associated with measurement, (where measurement is necessary and sufficient for consciousness), then we'd have to at least consider the possibility that quantum variables might actually be 'measuring' eachother(?)
(Whilst not suggesting that particles are conscious in any of this, however).

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. TTBOMK consciousness is only associated with measurement to the extent that conscious entities interact with the environment - external quantum measurements occur long before consciousness becomes aware of the outcome. How that is relevant to quantum variables 'measuring each other' is not clear - when two quantum systems interact and decoherence follows, a 'measurement' has occurred - which system has 'done' the measuring is moot, by convention it's usually attributed to the larger (typically macro-scale) system.

 

[SelfSim]

@FrumiousBandersnatch:
Ok .. need to get clear here in a separate post. Kauffman couched all the above described ideas as 'way out there' kinds of notions, parts of which are (or 'may be') testable and he cites the scientists doing some of that research.

Its hard to tell from the short 20 min video I linked to previously, but I think he's starting out from the observation of 'Free Will', and pointing out that classical physics thus far, doesn't provide much explanatory value. He then invokes quantum physics as the next best alternative approach, and then explores that idea in a short lecture/presentation.

The point I'm making here, is that whilst I agree it sounds like complete quantum woo, he's someone who is rather uniquely positioned to be able to come up with 'wild speculations' and then make something happen with them. He's an Evolutionary Biologist, a qualified medical Doctor and has held prominent positions in academia (University of Chicago, Pennsylvania - Emeritus Prof) and University of Calgary - bridging the Physics Department and has published in Physics journals. He's no slouch when it comes to complexity modelling also.

Its ok to approach all this stuff from a skeptical viewpoint .. but one has to recognise such people's expertise and allow them a little slack, when it comes to potentially productive scientific speculation, IMO.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. TTBOMK consciousness is only associated with measurement to the extent that conscious entities interact with the environment - external quantum measurements occur long before consciousness becomes aware of the outcome. How that is relevant to quantum variables 'measuring each other' is not clear - when two quantum systems interact and decoherence follows, a 'measurement' has occurred - which system has 'done' the measuring is moot, by convention it's usually attributed to the larger (typically macro-scale) system.

And I'm not clear on your distinction there, that: 'external quantum measurements occur long before consciousness becomes aware of the outcome'?
Especially given that conscious minds conceive quantum measurement experiments in the first place?

What's always missing in those measurement experiments, is some accounting for the active role a mind plays in all parts of the measurement process. I'm not saying that it has to be a significant part either .. it may not be .. but we have no idea about that aspect at the moment .. so it therefore gets discounted .. for no objective reason(?)

ETA: I agree its unfortunate that pseudoscience has hijacked research into these mainstream areas .. but I refuse to let that be the sole reason to not discuss it properly..(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I'm not clear on your distinction there, that: 'external quantum measurements occur long before consciousness becomes aware of the outcome'?
Especially given that conscious minds conceive quantum measurement experiments in the first place?

Quantum measurements happen when a quantum system in a superposition interacts with the environment. Sometimes a conscious entity will observe the outcome, sometimes a conscious observer will set up the interaction (e.g. an experiment) in order to observe the outcome. Either way, the observer does not become conscious of the outcome until long (by quantum event standards) after it has occurred and only indirectly, via an extensive intervening sequence of events (e.g. the emission of photons from the vicinity, their impingement on the retina, distal signal processing, transmission up the optic nerve, followed by multiple levels of further processing).

ETA: I agree its unfortunate that pseudoscience has hijacked research into these mainstream areas .. but I refuse to let that be the sole reason to not discuss it properly..(?)

Sure, but there's an awful lot of speculative science out there, and one has to decide what seems worth serious consideration.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. TTBOMK consciousness is only associated with measurement to the extent that conscious entities interact with the environment - external quantum measurements occur long before consciousness becomes aware of the outcome. How that is relevant to quantum variables 'measuring each other' is not clear - when two quantum systems interact and decoherence follows, a 'measurement' has occurred - which system has 'done' the measuring is moot, by convention it's usually attributed to the larger (typically macro-scale) system.

So also, try this on as an explanation:
Kauffman's take on 'The Quantum Enigma' (Rosenblum, B, and Kuttner, F. 'The Quantum Enigma', Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2006):

One electron is prepared as a superposition in two boxes. If we are free willed, and thus counterfactual statements can be real, we can choose to do either:
- to do an experiment to look in a box to see if the electron is there, yes or no,
or instead;
- counterfactually, we can choose to do an experiment that allows us to “infer” that the electron is in a superposition in two boxes. Note again that the Quantum Enigma requires that counterfactual statements can sometimes be true, which is ontologically possible both in the where measurement is real .. and in ontologically indeterminate.

On the Enigma we are free willed to choose the question, but could have chosen otherwise .. Nature answers, but could have chosen otherwise.
If our consciousness plays a role in measurement, we and nature jointly "create reality" .. for we could have done otherwise and, if measurement is real and indeterminate, nature could have done otherwise. We do not experience this interference, we infer it.
But if instead we had chosen to "look" in box 1, and we had consciously seen the electron, then the electron IS in box 1. Also IF we look in the first box and the electron is NOT in the first box where we look, it IS in the other box.
Ie: finding the electron NOT in the first box “collapses the wave function” so it IS in the second box, despite fact we did not look in the second box.
Thus, if we have free will, our choice of experiment, and here, our conscious observation of the electron, together with nature’s answer, “creates” reality. Because we only “see” the electron if in
box 1, our conscious experience seems to be associated with a Yes measurement answer where the wave function “collapses".

How can we use 'Res potentia', (real possibilities), to address the puzzle that if we look in box 1 and do not measure the electron to come to be in box 1, it comes to be in box 2? If quantum coherence of a superposition are two possibilities, then the new actual, “no electron in box 1” acausally and instantaneously alters what is now possible. In the present case, the only possibility left is that the electron is in box 2, so it comes BE in box 2 by the new actual, “The electron is not in box 1”.

 

[SelfSim]

Further:

Deisiderata for a solution to the Enigma:

1. What is/are the roles of consciousness in the enigma?
2. What are the roles of responsible free will and doings in the enigma?

I turn now toward what will become the new Triad: Actuals, Possibles, Mind measuring and doing in a persistent co-creative becoming.

Three central proposals to “solve the enigma”, if real:

1) conscious observation is necessary and sufficient to acausally mediate measurement. This is Mind, to which I add;
2) Responsible doings or will, at the level of fermions exchanging bosons, and us.
3) Whatever the classical world may be, at the quantum level of that classical world, quantum variables can measure one another. So classical devices can measure via these quantum variables.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Further:

Deisiderata for a solution to the Enigma:

1. What is/are the roles of consciousness in the enigma?
2. What are the roles of responsible free will and doings in the enigma?

I turn now toward what will become the new Triad: Actuals, Possibles, Mind measuring and doing in a persistent co-creative becoming.

Three central proposals to “solve the enigma”, if real:

1) conscious observation is necessary and sufficient to acausally mediate measurement. This is Mind, to which I add;
2) Responsible doings or will, at the level of fermions exchanging bosons, and us.
3) Whatever the classical world may be, at the quantum level of that classical world, quantum variables can measure one another. So classical devices can measure via these quantum variables.

It seems his 'Quantum Enigma' is his idea that consciousness is somehow involved with quantum behaviour. Quite what his definition of free will is, I don't know, but it sounds like the incoherent folk conception of it (i.e. neither determinstic/causal nor random).

But even ignoring that, it makes no sense to me... e.g. 'Acausal mediation' of measurement??

I hope he succeeds in his endeavours, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

There's no need to get into quantum anything. Either our actions are based on a series of causation OR randomness OR some combination of both. Neither get you what most people refer to as "Free Will."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There's no need to get into quantum anything. Either our actions are based on a series of causation OR randomness OR some combination of both. Neither get you what most people refer to as "Free Will."

Yes - randomness apart, I don't understand how or why you could or would make a choice without having some basis for it. It seems to me that expressing one's 'will' is to act on some causal history of preference, desire, need, etc. IOW you choose something because <some reason(s)>. If my choices weren't based on my personal experiential history, they wouldn't be my choices.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes - randomness apart, I don't understand how or why you could or would make a choice without having some basis for it. It seems to me that expressing one's 'will' is to act on some causal history of preference, desire, need, etc. IOW you choose something because <some reason(s)>. If my choices weren't based on my personal experiential history, they wouldn't be my choices.

So where you make a choice, say, as in a quantum experiment, you are involved in the process of how it unfolds because of your choices in how you conducted that experiment, then?

 

[SelfSim]

There's no need to get into quantum anything. Either our actions are based on a series of causation OR randomness OR some combination of both. Neither get you what most people refer to as "Free Will."

Yet you are a person, and thus the 'Free Will' you refer to there, exists?

 

[Bradskii]

Yet you are a person, and thus the 'Free Will' you refer to there, exists?

If you define free will as being decisions based on a series of causation and/or randomness, then yes. But that's not what people normally mean by free will. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[SelfSim]

If you define free will as being decisions based on a series of causation and/or randomness, then yes. But that's not what people normally mean by free will. Quite the opposite in fact.

So one can define 'free will' as not existing?

 

[Bradskii]

So one can define 'free will' as not existing?

I'm open to arguments. But my current position is that it doesn't exist.