Bill

Unlike Corey, I'm going to presume that your question, quoted above, has nothing at all to do with anything else you've posted. Therefore, I will answer your question in as straightforward of a manner as I feel up to this evening.

=====

One of the basic attributes of certain "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics is the idea that certain occurrances are "uncaused" (i.e., something happens for no reason at all). This is called a violation of causality because the principal of causality asserts that all physical phenomena are "caused."

However, part of the problem with proving this to be true is the fact that another basic attribute of certain "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics is the idea that certain phenomena are "non-local" (meaning that they can take place instantaneously regardless of the distance which separates two occurrances). So, if the "cause" of some phenomena can exist virtually anywhere in the entire universe (or "outside," presuming that some quantum phenomena can originate from "outside" of our "Big Bang" universe, in some other part of the "real" multi-dimensional space/time continuum within which our "Big Bang" universe exists), then just how can we possibly exclude the idea that an observed phenomena has a cause, but the cause is actually unknown?

Speaking personally, I'm a great fan of causality, and I detest the idea that "uncaused effects" can actually occur. Nonetheless, I do admit that some "well proven" "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics do make the mathmatical assertion that "uncaused effects" are real phenomena. So, I'm personally adopting a skeptical attitude towards "uncaused effects" pending the development and verification of some theme and variation of the holy grail of physics, the "Theory of Everything" (ToE). The ToE is supposed to explain all of those damn contradictions!

=====

Anyway, we have no reason at all to believe that "uncaused effects" at a quantum level can, in any way, manifest themselves at a "macro level" (i.e., the level of operation for things we are used to dealing with, even if they are very small; things like atoms, molecules, and so forth). On the other hand, we have no good reason to believe that they cannot so manifest themselves, and there is at least some experimental data to back up that assertion (that these "uncaused effects" are detectable in certain circumstances).

But a lot of debaters who feel the need to postulate the existence of some sort of "random number generator" in order to justify "free will" will eventually get around to invoking the "uncaused effects" of quantum mechanics as the basic mechanism without in any way being able to justify that there is, in fact, any real connection between those "uncaused effects" of quantum mechanics and the human brain functions which are at issue within the debate in question.

Personally, I'm perfectly familiar with the sorts of PSEUDO-random number generators used by computer software to obtain perfectly workable random numbers, and I see no reason at all to believe that, if our human brains actually need such a thing in order to obtain "free will," then our human brains are perfectly capable of creating just such a PSEUDO-random number generator as part and parcel of the human brain. So, I really think it is a waste of time to invoke a somewhat controversial topic from quantum mechanics to justify a concept which can be perfectly logically defended without needing to rely upon anything that is the least bit out of the ordinary.

=====

A bit long-winded, but I do hope you will view this as a straightforward answer to your question.

== Bill

Answerer

Okay, I admitted that I never check for spelling mistakes, but this is only a trival matter. Next, you said that tachyons predate string theory, then you are sorry mistaken, string theory existed long in the early 1900s by two guys(sorry I temporarily forgot their names) who propose the elementary building blocks is string rather than particles but it was rejected. It is only the 1970s, then physicists considered their theories again.
Next, you say that tachyons cannot use to violate causality but don't you know that their mere existence already violate the law of causality. In the other words, the tachyons (travel faster than light)were already in a place before they even reach it. You will be surprised that this is the reason why several physicists refuse to believe in its existence.

Hans

And I thank you.

DRFseven

I agree with you, Hans, and think you know more about the psychology of behavior than you apparently think you do.

Our whole motivation system is based on goal-directedness via "valence tagging", which is accomplished through memory of prior cognitions and emotions. This tagging is non-volitional; we have no control over it, rather, it is set in motion though layers upon nested layers of accumulated values that go back to our infancies. This does not mean the values can't change; of course they can, but obviously, this is not under our direct control. We can't suddenly decide to think murder is acceptable or that something that strikes us as ugly is pretty, though it is possible to come to think those things if additional experience happens to make those thoughts possible. In addition, most of our values are applied below the conscious level, so we are not even aware of thinking them, much less changing what we think.

All this valence tagging implicates dopamine and the reward transport system of the brain in combination with memory/cognition as the mechanism for volitional behavior, which serves to reinforce what you said about everything being done to reward a desire.

Friar Bellows

Please provide a reference for this! It sounds very interesting.

Corey Hammer

Do you have some cites for that? I'd be interested in reading them. I'm doing some work now on self-regulation of task performance and that sounds relevant.

That's not quite true. Take for example, the central path of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In order to follow that path, conscious information processing is needed. However, simple preferences (for noncontextual stimuli) can be influenced implicitly by mere subliminal exposure of the stimuli previously (see work by Zajonc).

Values are likely activated and processed automatically in many cases. The mechanisms of formation are nontransparent to individuals but like reading (Nisbett & Ross, 1977) we most likely do not need access to the process in order to do it consciously.

In short, it's little more complex than simply being completely nonconscious.

As an aside and very interesting, John Bargh and his collegeaus recently had a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Dec, '01) on nonconscious goal processing which provides an interesting read.

Hans

DRFseven,

Thanks for the support.

What you describe is apparent to me simply from experience. I think it should be possible for anyone to look at their own behavior now compared to what it may have been in the past and reach the understanding you set forth. Experience alone seems to lend to the idea that our behavior is merely the product of our biological and environmental make up. Or in other words: We (our minds) are not causually free agents.

DRFseven

Here's something you might be interested in; <a href="http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_freewill.htm" target="_blank">A Bifold Model of Freewill</a>, by John McCrone from the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999. Here, he defines freewill as a biological process/social construct phenomenon.

More relevent is a paper by Douglass F. Watt, Director of Neuropsychology, Quincy Hospital: <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/ASSC/watt/default.html" target="_blank">Implications of Affective Neuroscience for Extended Reticular Thalamic Activating System Theories of Consciousness</a>.

I'm saying that we can't help but tag. Information comes in and we tag it. Certainly we can be aware that we are tagging, but, even so, much of the story behind the motivation escapes us. Consider, for instance, "I need to get to the bank before two o'clock." I may be conscious of factors that compel me to want to get to the bank by two, such as wanting to get a deposit on the books by tomorrow, thereby avoiding a returned check and avoiding embarrassment, but I am probably not aware of my earliest experiences with embarrassment, of making mistakes, of being irresponsible, of handling money, of doing "what I'm supposed to do", etc. All of this contributes to my degree of motivation and, thus, my volition. All I am aware of, however, are the "cream"; the coherent thoughts that I can skim off the top of that process.

DRFseven

You'd think. Strangely enough, I find that most people don't see it that way. People have an inexplicable, to me, way of allowing biology/experience some influence in a decision, as in some type of nudge, while the bulk of the "power" of the decision is attributed to some unknown force of knowledge that somehow exists independently of learning.

Yup. We are what we eat, so to speak.

KeithHarwood

You don't need quantum mechanics to get a perfectly good genuine random number generator. Normal thermal noise will do. Just get a neuron with high gain on its inputs. What's more, such a device would have evolutionary advantages. In very simple creatures it could be used as a tie-breaker between equal stimuli. In more advanced creatures it could influence exploratory behaviour.

On second thoughts, that is a quantum mechanical random number generator. The thermal motion of the molecules is chaotic, but not QM. However, the chemical reaction which triggers the neuron is a quantum tunneling event that occurs with a certain probability, but no certainty on any particular occasion. So an uncaused QM event, a transmitter molecule tunnels through a potential barrier and triggers a neuron. The neuron's signal is propagated, amplified and filtered and the organism thinks, `that way looks interesting' and wakes up the next day to find it has volunteered for a five year stint in the Navy.