John Platko wrote:...
As I stated before, the two stage process is the "special theory of free will" it is an agential level mode of explanation. And useful for many situations. (like my blues lick program) The "general theory of free will", which has yet to be presented, will integrate Lists branching history and decision points merged with Carroll's quantum MWI, with some JP special sauce that allows real honest "could have done otherwise" with deterministic histories - andI'm thinking entanglement is going to be key.

Got to finish the flies first though.

Entanglement??!! Are you kidding? Only indiv=idual fundamental particles that are created in the same space-time event can get entangled. Therefore, your suggestion is very naive, and absurd.

John Platko wrote:
I think he means the same situation within experimental error.

In what sense is driving up to a stop sign always the same within experimental error? You're supposed to know all about this. Just name a situation that is replicable within experimental error except in an experiment. Of course, then you have to worry about the way the experimental conditions modify the experimental subject. You're supposed to know something about this after listening to so many people you assert are experts.

John Platko wrote:He is an expert in his field.

Unlike you, I guess. Beware of experts who know next to nothing in comparison with what they wish they knew, and if you're not an expert in the field, be cautious about identifying experts when they know next to nothing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I think he means the same situation within experimental error.

In what sense is driving up to a stop sign always the same within experimental error? You're supposed to know all about this. Just name a situation that is replicable within experimental error except in an experiment. Of course, then you have to worry about the way the experimental conditions modify the experimental subject. You're supposed to know something about this after listening to so many people you assert are experts.

If the same subject is tested again that's a very different condition. If it's a different subject that's also a very different condition.

Cito di Pense wrote:[

John Platko wrote:He is an expert in his field.

Unlike you, I guess. Beware of experts who know next to nothing in comparison with what they wish they knew, and if you're not an expert in the field, be cautious about identifying experts when they know next to nothing.

What are a neurologists qualifications for studying free will? If he can't even get the basics of "same conditions" right he might be lacking in relavent expertise. Come to that, posing daft questions about how brains work doesn't inspire confidence there either.

DavidMcC wrote:

John Platko wrote:...
As I stated before, the two stage process is the "special theory of free will" it is an agential level mode of explanation. And useful for many situations. (like my blues lick program) The "general theory of free will", which has yet to be presented, will integrate Lists branching history and decision points merged with Carroll's quantum MWI, with some JP special sauce that allows real honest "could have done otherwise" with deterministic histories - andI'm thinking entanglement is going to be key.

Got to finish the flies first though.

Entanglement??!! Are you kidding? Only indiv=idual fundamental particles that are created in the same space-time event can get entangled. Therefore, your suggestion is very naive, and absurd.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of QM.

from

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.

...

Quantum entanglement is an area of extremely active research by the physics community, and its effects have been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[11][12][13][14] neutrinos,[15] electrons,[16][17] molecules the size of buckyballs,[18][19] and even small diamonds.[20][21] Research is also focused on the utilization of entanglement effects in communication and computation.

from

Quantum Record! 3,000 Atoms Entangled in Bizarre State

Using a single particle of light, scientists have for the first time linked together thousands of atoms in a bizarre state known as quantum entanglement, where the behavior of the atoms would stay connected even if they were at opposite ends of the universe.

...

The researchers suggest it should be simple to entangle together still more atoms. "We could go to entangling a million atoms relatively straightforwardly," Vuletić said.

Am I kidding about the connection between entanglement and free will?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I think he means the same situation within experimental error.

In what sense is driving up to a stop sign always the same within experimental error? You're supposed to know all about this. Just name a situation that is replicable within experimental error except in an experiment.

I was talking about experiment error within the fruit fly experiment - so I think we're good.

Of course, then you have to worry about the way the experimental conditions modify the experimental subject. You're supposed to know something about this after listening to so many people you assert are experts.

Well I don't know that much about fruit flies but I imagine some of the experiments piss off the experimental subject - what with taking away a bit of their free will and all. I'm sure the lab boys and girls have it all statistically nulled out.

John Platko wrote:He is an expert in his field.

Unlike you, I guess. Beware of experts who know next to nothing in comparison with what they wish they knew,

Why? I prefer experts who greatly wish to decrease their ignorance.

and if you're not an expert in the field, be cautious about identifying experts when they know next to nothing.

Well that's why I try to go with peer reviewed papers. How wrong could they be?

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I think he means the same situation within experimental error.

In what sense is driving up to a stop sign always the same within experimental error? You're supposed to know all about this. Just name a situation that is replicable within experimental error except in an experiment. Of course, then you have to worry about the way the experimental conditions modify the experimental subject. You're supposed to know something about this after listening to so many people you assert are experts.

If the same subject is tested again that's a very different condition. If it's a different subject that's also a very different condition.

I think the experts must make a judgement call on whether these differences matter for the experiment at hand. And we have the peer review process for quality control.

But I seem to recall reading that these fruit flies only have about 100,000 neurons somebody must be ... Oh of course they are

When the robot fruit fly is up and running the experimental errors should greatly decrease, they will be able to reboot the fly after each trial.

Cito di Pense wrote:[

John Platko wrote:He is an expert in his field.

Unlike you, I guess. Beware of experts who know next to nothing in comparison with what they wish they knew, and if you're not an expert in the field, be cautious about identifying experts when they know next to nothing.

What are a neurologists qualifications for studying free will?

Neurons create free will? But I'm thinking their working closer to the action than physicists.

If he can't even get the basics of "same conditions" right he might be lacking in relavent expertise. Come to that, posing daft questions about how brains work doesn't inspire confidence there either.

Well, to be honest, even I have to give that paper a . Scientist should stick to their knitting and get out of the philosophy business.

John Platko wrote:
Well that's why I try to go with peer reviewed papers. How wrong could they be?

Well, there's the rub, John. You're not really getting an education in these specialties by skimming peer-reviewed papers (if you're even doing that). So, you don't really know how wrong they (and hence, you) could be about the contentions you care about.

Notice, this isn't saying, out of hand, that anyone is wrong, just that neither you nor they know how wrong they could be about the big picture. You're strictly a big-picture guy for the purposes of these topics, and you try to suggest you know what these folks are talking about, but I don't see any evidence that you or they know what they're talking about. You have such an ADD about these matters that you never spend enough time focusing on one point to discover if it's even relevant to your interest, which is full of ADD. That's part of your charm.

When I want to listen to a carnival barker, I think I know just where to look. When I want to see a scary clown with big floppy shoes, I know just where to look. Operating like a carnival barker or a scary clown to purvey philosophy makes sense only if somebody's trying to make money. Like I said, a lot of this stuff does have entertainment value. Selling the ideas, though? To whom? If you buy it, I think that's swell.

John Platko wrote:I was talking about experiment error within the fruit fly experiment

It's hard to know what you are talking about until you actually say what it is you were talking about. What were we talking about? Replicability? What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Well that's why I try to go with peer reviewed papers. How wrong could they be?

Well, there's the rub, John. You're not really getting an education in these specialties by skimming peer-reviewed papers (if you're even doing that).

I'm certainly not skimming when I'm presenting a paper section by section so we can all slowly digest it.

So, you don't really know how wrong they (and hence, you) could be about the contentions you care about.

How much room for error do you think there could there be in studying the free will of fruit flies?

And how many places of significance would you give that error?

Notice, this isn't saying, out of hand, that anyone is wrong, just that neither you nor they know how wrong they could be about the big picture.

"the big picture" Is that like romansh's "unfolding universe"?

What's next - are you going to ask me to turn my hymnal to page 42?

You're strictly a big-picture guy for the purposes of these topics, and you try to suggest you know what these folks are talking about,

I'm pretty much an agential level guy for the purpose of the standard theory of free will. And for that I'm both a theoretical and experimental free willer.

but I don't see any evidence that you or they know what they're talking about. You have such an ADD about these matters that you never spend enough time focusing on one point to discover if it's even relevant to your interest, which is full of ADD. That's part of your charm.

I admit the last few pages was a bit of a wild ride but rest assured I've kept it all in focus and I will wrap up my thoughts on the matter in my usual way. We're shooting for the general theory of free will.

When I want to listen to a carnival barker, I think I know just where to look. When I want to see a scary clown with big floppy shoes, I know just where to look. Operating like a carnival barker or a scary clown to purvey philosophy makes sense only if somebody's trying to make money. Like I said, a lot of this stuff does have entertainment value. Selling the ideas, though? To whom? If you buy it, I think that's swell.

John Platko wrote:I was talking about experiment error within the fruit fly experiment

It's hard to know what you are talking about until you actually say what it is you were talking about.

I think you'll find that if you actually read the posts and put each thread of conversation that I'm involved in in context you'll know more about what I'm talking about. It's best not to put a retrocausality chicken and egg discussion in context with a free will of fruit fly discussion.

What were we talking about? Replicability? What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

I think that's Grahamh's issue, perhaps he'll sort it out with you.

Oh this looks very promising.

from

Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will

The same experiments that reveal the nature of entanglement can also be interpreted as a measure of free will, say researchers.

...

But the same also holds true for the experimenters themselves. It means there can be no information shared between them and the particles to be measured either. In other words, they must have completely free will.

In fact, if an experimenter lacks even a single bit of free will then quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of hidden variables. Conversely, if we accept the veracity of quantum mechanics, then we are able to place a bound on the nature of free will.

That’s an interesting way of stating the problem of entanglement and suggests a number of promising, related conundrums: what of systems that are partially entangled and others in which more than two particle become entangled.

Free will never looked so fascinating.

That's a pretty tenous definition of free will being played with there.

John Platko wrote:I'm certainly not skimming when I'm presenting a paper section by section so we can all slowly digest it.

(emphasis mine)

Whatever, John. You've found something that looks like free will to you. You read the papers and highlight anything that seems meaningful for your concept of free will (whatever it is: we don't get to hear about that); then when you 'present' the paper in the forum, you emphasize those passages with large fonts. That shows you know how to read and change the font size. It doesn't show that you have a meaningful concept of free will that isn't simply compatibilist. I already addressed your interpretation of the fruit flies experiments.

Any time you think you've found arguments for calling something "Free Will", your first task is to show why you think we should call it 'free', and likewise, why you think we should call it 'will'. The fruit flies don't really help you much in sorting that out, because the philosophical concept implies both should be present at the same time. If that's too difficult, just call it something else; give it a proper name.

I think you'll find that your responses to the stuff you're reading are quite subjective, because you don't address yourself to such an argument. You simply imply the author has convinced you, and by implication, the rest of us. That says something specific about your opinion of your own intellectual abilities and backgrounds your strong tendency toward confirmation bias.

John Platko wrote:I think you'll find that if you actually read the posts and put each thread of conversation that I'm involved in in context you'll know more about what I'm talking about.

(emphasis mine)

Context is everything, isn't it? I've seen that you know how to read and change the fonts in your forum posts. I do know what you're talking about: your favorite activity here is explaining to people what you're talking about. This implies that you think you know what you're talking about; when we focus on that, you refer to the so-called experts you're citing as having something applicable to say for what you're talking about, which is still only about you. See above. If free will is as abstruse and complex as the number of highlighted passages suggests, then it's not simple to describe why we should call it 'free' or why we should call it 'will'. So let's stop calling it 'free will', which term dates from a time before neuroscience, and what were those folks on about? Get the picture?

If there is something that can be called 'free will', and I have it (whatever that means), I really should spend a lot more time dithering about what my next move should be. Since I don't have that problem, proving that I have free will seems a waste of effort.

Do, or do not. There is no try. (Thank you, whoever wrote Yoda's lines.)

John Platko wrote:
I think the experts must make a judgement call on whether these differences matter for the experiment at hand. And we have the peer review process for quality control.

But I seem to recall reading that these fruit flies only have about 100,000 neurons somebody must be ... Oh of course they are

When the robot fruit fly is up and running the experimental errors should greatly decrease, they will be able to reboot the fly after each trial.

Is it possible to reset even one of those neurons to the same initial conditions? This is not "experimental error" it is a fundamental limit of biology.

Effectively if you put the same fly, or person, in a second run of a test it's not the same entity the second time, it has been changed. Different subjects doing different things tells us nothing about an individuals ability to do otherwise on any single occasion.

This is a stark difference between digital nd biological systems. We can read and reset the digital states of the most complex systems precisely at the logic level. The algorithm will repeat the same move every time under identical conditions. That may be true of the biological system as well, but we can't test for that.

IMO, flies have no biological free will at all, because their behavuiour is entirely determined by instinctive responses to sensory input - they don't think, at least not in the manner that humans can.
Whether they have any other kind of free will is not cleat, as these other kinds are so far ill-defined.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:I'm certainly not skimming when I'm presenting a paper section by section so we can all slowly digest it.

(emphasis mine)

Whatever, John. You've found something that looks like free will to you. You read the papers and highlight anything that seems meaningful for your concept of free will (whatever it is: we don't get to hear about that); then when you 'present' the paper in the forum, you emphasize those passages with large fonts. That shows you know how to read and change the font size. It doesn't show that you have a meaningful concept of free will that isn't simply compatibilist. I already addressed your interpretation of the fruit flies experiments.

Any time you think you've found arguments for calling something "Free Will", your first task is to show why you think we should call it 'free', and likewise, why you think we should call it 'will'. The fruit flies don't really help you much in sorting that out, because the philosophical concept implies both should be present at the same time. If that's too difficult, just call it something else; give it a proper name.

I think you'll find that your responses to the stuff you're reading are quite subjective, because you don't address yourself to such an argument. You simply imply the author has convinced you, and by implication, the rest of us. That says something specific about your opinion of your own intellectual abilities and backgrounds your strong tendency toward confirmation bias.

John Platko wrote:I think you'll find that if you actually read the posts and put each thread of conversation that I'm involved in in context you'll know more about what I'm talking about.

(emphasis mine)

Context is everything, isn't it? I've seen that you know how to read and change the fonts in your forum posts. I do know what you're talking about: your favorite activity here is explaining to people what you're talking about. This implies that you think you know what you're talking about; when we focus on that, you refer to the so-called experts you're citing as having something applicable to say for what you're talking about, which is still only about you. See above. If free will is as abstruse and complex as the number of highlighted passages suggests, then it's not simple to describe why we should call it 'free' or why we should call it 'will'. So let's stop calling it 'free will', which term dates from a time before neuroscience, and what were those folks on about? Get the picture?

If there is something that can be called 'free will', and I have it (whatever that means), I really should spend a lot more time dithering about what my next move should be. Since I don't have that problem, proving that I have free will seems a waste of effort.

Do, or do not. There is no try. (Thank you, whoever wrote Yoda's lines.)

You seem to be having trouble connecting the dots of the technical ingredients needed for free will that I have carefully prepared for this thread. I will shortly (I'm thinking tomorrow as today I'm a bit busy) wrap them all up in a nice stew -special sauce n all.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I think the experts must make a judgement call on whether these differences matter for the experiment at hand. And we have the peer review process for quality control.

But I seem to recall reading that these fruit flies only have about 100,000 neurons somebody must be ... Oh of course they are

When the robot fruit fly is up and running the experimental errors should greatly decrease, they will be able to reboot the fly after each trial.

Is it possible to reset even one of those neurons to the same initial conditions? This is not "experimental error" it is a fundamental limit of biology.

Effectively if you put the same fly, or person, in a second run of a test it's not the same entity the second time, it has been changed. Different subjects doing different things tells us nothing about an individuals ability to do otherwise on any single occasion.

This is a stark difference between digital nd biological systems. We can read and reset the digital states of the most complex systems precisely at the logic level.

Perhaps in theory but for any practical digital system we reset the agential level states, not the physical level states.

The algorithm will repeat the same move every time under identical conditions. That may be true of the biological system as well, but we can't test for that.

Some science cannot rely on repeating experiments. We can't repeat the origin of the universe, yet that doesn't stop scientists from studying it. I think ultimately free will experiments suffer from similar restrictions, but that doesn't mean that we can't develop a robust theory that explains (in a way that one can actually understand) the physics afoot in free will - and pretty much everything else, and then confirm the theory by doing experiments that confirm the theory - subject to some experimental error.

I have now introduced all the ingredients that we need for such a theory, the unified general theory of free will, which is a mode of explanation that gives deeper understanding of why the special theory of free will (the two stage process) works. That should clarify your concerns.

DavidMcC wrote:IMO, flies have no biological free will at all, because their behavuiour is entirely determined by instinctive responses to sensory input - they don't think, at least not in the manner that humans can.
Whether they have any other kind of free will is not cleat, as these other kinds are so far ill-defined.

I think one might need be a fly on the wall in one of those experiments to confirm your claims.

Have you untangled your quantum entanglement misunderstandings. The physics universe paradigm branched:

It's turtle's all the way down, entanglement all the way up.

felltoearth wrote:That's a pretty tenous definition of free will being played with there.

I would call it a technical not tenuous definition. But it might be a little unclear why at this point in the thread. I hope to add some clarification shortly.

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I think the experts must make a judgement call on whether these differences matter for the experiment at hand. And we have the peer review process for quality control.

But I seem to recall reading that these fruit flies only have about 100,000 neurons somebody must be ... Oh of course they are

When the robot fruit fly is up and running the experimental errors should greatly decrease, they will be able to reboot the fly after each trial.

Is it possible to reset even one of those neurons to the same initial conditions? This is not "experimental error" it is a fundamental limit of biology.

Effectively if you put the same fly, or person, in a second run of a test it's not the same entity the second time, it has been changed. Different subjects doing different things tells us nothing about an individuals ability to do otherwise on any single occasion.

This is a stark difference between digital nd biological systems. We can read and reset the digital states of the most complex systems precisely at the logic level.

Perhaps in theory but for any practical digital system we reset the agential level states, not the physical level states.

Not so, we would reset a lower level we can call memory,registers, gates or similar. This is clearly not 'agential states'. What would you set to get a particular agential state?

You are half there in that we don't care about the precise quantum details

As always with computers defining their operation is a matter of manipulating physical states of holding and switching elements

John Platko wrote:

The algorithm will repeat the same move every time under identical conditions. That may be true of the biological system as well, but we can't test for that.

Some science cannot rely on repeating experiments. We can't repeat the origin of the universe, yet that doesn't stop scientists from studying it. I think ultimately free will experiments suffer from similar restrictions, but that doesn't mean that we can't develop a robust theory that explains (in a way that one can actually understand) the physics afoot in free will - and pretty much everything else, and then confirm the theory by doing experiments that confirm the theory - subject to some experimental error.

I have now introduced all the ingredients that we need for such a theory, the unified general theory of free will, which is a mode of explanation that gives deeper understanding of why the special theory of free will (the two stage process) works. That should clarify your concerns.

It was your source who brought up "identical circumstances and history" and you who supported it

John Platko wrote:
I think he means the same situation within experimental error. You allow for experimental error, don't you?

I think I have consistently stated you can't demonstrate an ability to have done otherwise and you definitely can't do so by observing different subjects behaving differently in different circumstances.
. Maybe you are catching on at last. Of course it's not about " the same situation within experimental error".

John Platko wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:IMO, flies have no biological free will at all, because their behavuiour is entirely determined by instinctive responses to sensory input - they don't think, at least not in the manner that humans can.
Whether they have any other kind of free will is not cleat, as these other kinds are so far ill-defined.

I think one might need be a fly on the wall in one of those experiments to confirm your claims.

Have you untangled your quantum entanglement misunderstandings. The physics universe paradigm branched:

It's turtle's all the way down, entanglement all the way up.

I think that you are the one who doesn't understand quantum entanglement. I tried to exaplin it to you, yesyterday, but you ignored it, then just posted the above self-congratulatory nonsense.

BTW, mybcosmologyb is NOT a case of turtles all the way down, as I explained in the LQG thread, but which you evidently either didn't understand, or just ignored.