What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

You have already answered your own question (at least partially) in one of your previous posts. Intention is either a deterministic process or one that involves some element of randomness.

How would a random intention affect the outcome of a random quantum process in the desired direction?
 
Decision Augmentation Theory proposes that the output of the PK-RNG experiments is random and the apparent effect is the result of selective sampling. Testing the PK-RNG database seems to support this idea.

http://lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/datjp.pdf
http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/DATapps.pdf

Linda

Thanks for the links; I will read these papers. At least initially, Radin's suggestion of a teleological model from the Markov chain experiment makes me skeptical that this is all just random, but we'll see.
 
How would a random intention affect the outcome of a random quantum process in the desired direction?

The two-stage model of (libertarian) free will holds only that a random aspect is involved, not that our decision-making process is a completely random process.

(The only difference between compatiblist free will and libertarian free will is that, in compatibilism, both stages are completely deterministic, whereas, in libertarianism, the first stage is generated indeterministically (and only partially at that) while the second stage is generated deterministically.
 
The two-stage model of (libertarian) free will holds only that a random aspect is involved, not that our decision-making process is a completely random process.

(The only difference between compatiblist free will and libertarian free will is that, in compatibilism, both stages are completely deterministic, whereas, in libertarianism, the first stage is generated indeterministically (and only partially at that) while the second stage is generated deterministically.

Ok, so whether determined, random, or a combination, how is it that this type of will affects the output of an RNG in the desired direction?
 
Decision Augmentation Theory proposes that the output of the PK-RNG experiments is random and the apparent effect is the result of selective sampling. Testing the PK-RNG database seems to support this idea.

http://lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/datjp.pdf
http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/DATapps.pdf

Linda

For anyone that is interested in this information, I also ran across an interesting interview with Edwin May that mentioned Decision Augmentation Theory a bit:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/may.html
 
For anyone that is interested in this information, I also ran across an interesting interview with Edwin May that mentioned Decision Augmentation Theory a bit:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/may.html

Is anyone aware of what experiment May is referring to in the following portion in bold? I haven't been able to track it down.

Basically May is saying that the notion of von Neumann Chains is "bad physics," which I find surprising. It seems that he thinks whatever the experiment is by Mandel, that it falsifies the concept of von Neumann Chains.

RPKP: You've stated before that you don't think quantum mechanics can be used to explain PK. I assume then that you don't agree with the suggestion of Schmidt, et. al.that, say, unobserved binary data on a disk or tape could exist in a superimposed or indeterminate state.

May: That is simply bad physics. Large things like transistors at room temp are not in the QM superimposed state. They are in some unknown eigenstate whose distribution is the classical one. There is an extensive QM literature on exactly this point. In fact the QM world is even worse. What Mendel has shown at University of Rochester is that if a QM system could be measured, but it still has not been, that that circumstance, alone, is enough to force the system into an eigenstate. Sorry...Schmidt is simply incorrect on this point.
 
Last edited:
Right, but how does the indeterminism work? Is it something other than randomness?

I'm not attempting to explain how a random event "works." It's a spontaneous event that defies any attempt at a mechanistic explanation. In that sense, it's completely mystical. What I'm attempting to explain (and what I have explained) is the possible role it plays in our decision-making process.
 
Ok, so whether determined, random, or a combination, how is it that this type of will affects the output of an RNG in the desired direction?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. A decision (regardless of whether it was generated completely deterministically or partially indeterministically) is causally efficacious. For example: If I decide to perform the double-slit experiment, then I will demonstrate the wave aspect. If I decided to perform the single-slit experiment, then I will demonstrate particle aspect.

At any rate, my argument still stands. Free will must entail determinism or indeterminism. (Or, if you will, some combination of both).
 
Decision Augmentation Theory proposes that the output of the PK-RNG experiments is random and the apparent effect is the result of selective sampling. Testing the PK-RNG database seems to support this idea.

http://lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/datjp.pdf
http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/DATapps.pdf

Linda

Linda,

I have read one of the papers and some other things Edwin May has said regarding this. I have a few objections to the Decision Augmentation Theory:

1. DAT doesn't seem to make any sense in the context of the global consciousness project data, which in fairness was not around when these papers were written. With the GCP, there is no way to say that the people could use precognition to determine when to start the experiment.

2. Edwin May seems to reject retroPK experiments in principle as being "bad physics." I have not been able to trace the research he mentioned in the interview I posted, but in the paper you linked to it appears that the authors have confused decoherence and Von Neumann chains. I am open to more evidence on this point, but so far I am not convinced by May's rejection of retroPK experiments since he thinks it is "bad physics," since many skeptics could reject what May does just as "bad science."

3. There is a categorization of PK explanations as being either information based (as in precognition used for DAT) or force-like. I am not proposing a force-like mechanism for PK, but rather an insertion or extraction of quantum information from a system. Perhaps this falls under the category of information explanations, which it may, since quantum information theory was not really around when the papers were written. But I do not think precognition is the only possible option under information explanations.

4. Radin's recent experiment testing PK on a system using Markov chains seems to suggest a teleological model for PK, which I also do not see how this fits in with DAT. DAT would have it that Radin selected to start the experiment at a time when the multiple RNGs would just so happen to be biased in a way that not only was biased, but biased in a way that was supportive of a teleological model rather than a forward in time causal "push."
 
I'm not sure what you're driving at. A decision (regardless of whether it was generated completely deterministically or partially indeterministically) is causally efficacious. For example: If I decide to perform the double-slit experiment, then I will demonstrate the wave aspect. If I decided to perform the single-slit experiment, then I will demonstrate particle aspect.

At any rate, my argument still stands. Free will must entail determinism or indeterminism. (Or, if you will, some combination of both).

What I am getting at is that it seems that there is something much more fundamental going on with intentions. If an intention originates apparently in the mind of a subject, yet this intention is able to affect the output of an RNG, it seems that there is something more going on than just a randomly, determined, or combined decision that occurs in the brain, especially given the suggestion of a teleological model based on Radin's experiment.

I think it would be interesting to see someone perform my idea of a "presentiment canceling" experiment, where it is attempted to see if a person can cancel the display of shocking photos more often than calm photos, and see if a presentiment effect still occurs with the canceled shocking images (if it wasn't displayed, then what would the presentiment effect be a result of?).
 
I'm not attempting to explain how a random event "works." It's a spontaneous event that defies any attempt at a mechanistic explanation. In that sense, it's completely mystical. What I'm attempting to explain (and what I have explained) is the possible role it plays in our decision-making process.
I was wondering whether you thought an indeterministic event was something other than a random event, as is the case with other people in this conversation. Apparently you do not.

If not, then that sort of free will is not the sort that libertarians desire.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
What I am getting at is that it seems that there is something much more fundamental going on with intentions. If an intention originates apparently in the mind of a subject, yet this intention is able to affect the output of an RNG, it seems that there is something more going on than just a randomly, determined, or combined decision that occurs in the brain, especially given the suggestion of a teleological model based on Radin's experiment.
There has been criticism of Radin's experiments.

https://barenormality.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/radin-for-a-rerun/

~~ Paul
 
I was wondering whether you thought an indeterministic event was something other than a random event, as is the case with other people in this conversation.

If not, then that sort of free will is not the sort that libertarians desire.

I have already explained to you what I thought a random event is, namely, a spontaneous event of conscious creativity that defies any attempt at a mechanistic explanation. In that sense, it is truly mystical event. (Skeptics are always arguing that there is nothing mystical. Well, a truly random event is something that is definitely mystical.) Also, I have already furnished you with a cogent explanation of how libertarian free will can work. It's called the two-stage model of free will. (It clearly shows how an agent could have chosen otherwise. This is exactly what libertarianism has to demonstrate.)
 
I was wondering whether you thought an indeterministic event was something other than a random event, as is the case with other people in this conversation. Apparently you do not.

If not, then that sort of free will is not the sort that libertarians desire.

~~ Paul

I would conceive that what we call "random" is simply a place holder for the same spontaneity at primitive levels of neutral systems as inhabit cognized "choice" at higher levels of neutral systems. I don't think it's two different processes...if that helps ;)
 
There has been criticism of Radin's experiments.

https://barenormality.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/radin-for-a-rerun/

~~ Paul

There are criticisms of any experiment. I was scanning through to find where it discusses the Markov chain experiment to which I referred but I was unable to find it, however I ran across this section that caught my eye:

Poor Quantum Physics

Radin believes that a positive result supports “consciousness causes collapse”. He bemoans a lack of experimental tests of that idea and attributes it, quite without justification, to a “taboo” against including consciousness in physics.
Thousands upon thousands of physicists and many times more students have out of some desire to conform simply refused to do some simple and obvious experiment. I think it says a lot about Radin and the company he keeps that he has no problem believing that.

I don’t know about you, my dear readers, but when I am in such a situation would have thought differently. Either all those people who should know more about the subject than me have their heads up their behinds. Or maybe it is just me. And I would have wondered if there was maybe something I am missing. And I would have found out what it was and avoided making an ass of myself. Then again, I would have (and have) also avoided book deals and the adoration of many fans and the like, all of which Radin secured for himself.
So who’s to say that reasonable thinking is actually the same as sensible thinking.

But back to the physics. As is obvious when one manages to find the relevant literature, conscious awareness of any information is not necessary to affect an interference pattern. Moreover, wave function collapse is not necessary to explain this. Both of this should be plain from the mainstream paper mentioned here.

This completely misrepresents Radin's position. This highly polemical with a clear intent to disparage Radin. I have read a great deal of Radin's work as well as his books, and this clearly misrepresents his position.

The “positive” result that he reports suffer from the same problem as virtually all positive results in parapsychology and also many in certain recognized scientific disciplines. It may simply be due to kinks in the social science methodology employed.

Some of the weirdness in the paper, not all of which I mentioned, leaves me with no confidence that there is more than “flexible methods” going on here.

I cannot take this guy seriously since he is basically rejecting all of parapsychology. The paper he linked to cannot be used to dismiss all psi research, nor can these blanket statements of vague and unscientific accusations of "poor methodology." It's a common tactic used but is a meaningless criticism since nothing is specified and is not falsifiable.

So I'm sorry, but based on these sections I really don't feel like reading the rest of the article, especially since it isn't about the Markov chain experiment to which I referred.
 
I have already explained to you what I thought a random event is, namely, a spontaneous event of conscious creativity that defies any attempt at a mechanistic explanation. In that sense, it is truly mystical event. (Skeptics are always arguing that there is nothing mystical. Well, a truly random event is something that is definitely mystical.) Also, I have already furnished you with a cogent explanation of how libertarian free will can work. It's called the two-stage model of free will. (It clearly shows how an agent could have chosen otherwise. This is exactly what libertarianism has to demonstrate.)
What?! Throughout this thread you have said that decisions are some combination of determinism and randomness. Did I miss something?

Searching . . . Oh look, post #88. I missed it.

"I'm not attempting to explain how a random event "works." It's a spontaneous event that defies any attempt at a mechanistic explanation. In that sense, it's completely mystical. What I'm attempting to explain (and what I have explained) is the possible role it plays in our decision-making process."

That's the first indication that you think there is something special going on in randomness. I assumed you were using the usual description of randomness. That's why the two-stage model didn't sound like it addressed libertarianism. Were you confused, too, Neil?

So do you have any notion how this mystical aspect of randomness works?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
There are criticisms of any experiment. I was scanning through to find where it discusses the Markov chain experiment to which I referred but I was unable to find it, however I ran across this section that caught my eye:
But these are criticisms by a physicist. I'll see if I can find others.

~~ Paul
 
I would conceive that what we call "random" is simply a place holder for the same spontaneity at primitive levels of neutral systems as inhabit cognized "choice" at higher levels of neutral systems. I don't think it's two different processes...if that helps ;)
Not really. I still think everyone is overlooking the problem of how the subject's will can possibly have such a specific effect on an RNG. It's basically magic. That's okay, but then I don't think the appeals to QM are relevant.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Back
Top