Several short remarks: * The embodied cognition crowd, which is growing in numbers, believe that even prokaryotes and eukaryotes are conscious. That is, neurons and brains are not needed. I'm offering a formalism broad enough to encompass that. * Some subset of that crowd claim that positive and negative valence states are felt by conscious beings. In bacteria, this might be hunger. or pain associated with local toxins. * The pure reductionist "its all just atoms" crowd imply that bacteria react entirely deterministically e.g following chemical gradients. * I'm suggesting that the "its all just atoms" view is fully reconcilable with subjective consciousness.
* If there is literally no free will, anywhere, ever, then the future should be fully determined, and should be viewable with mechanical devices. e.g. I might find out I'm hit by a bus in two weeks, but can take no evasive maneuvers because I have no free will. Thus, no paradoxes. So then, why can't we see the future? --linas On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 10:54 PM Michael Vassar <[email protected]> wrote: > You’re obviously correct but the fact that such disagreements or > confusions are even possible is a massive indictment of the value > attributed to concepts like being and free will. > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 11:03 AM Zoltan Nadasdy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Don't you think it is the other way around? >> >> More precisely, in the life of every kid, the concept of agency develops >> first, which triggers two other concepts: the recognition of the invariance >> of "agency" that gives rise to the concept of "self/being" and "free will". >> Free will derives from the recognition that the same invariant agent >> ("self") can make either decision A or B. No matter which way it decides, >> the source of the decision (the agent) remains the same. That is free will. >> And it is an illusion, because the decision could be biased by numerous >> factors, yet it feels like the alternative always presented itself to the >> agent. Moreover, it is an illusion because it is not true that the decision >> does not affect the agent. It does. After decision A, the agent is not the >> same as before. There come counterfactuals: the speculation of what would >> have happened if I had chosen B. >> >> These are not facts, just a theory. Not better than yours, but an >> alternative. I am happy to discuss it further. >> There is a book on the evolutionary aspect of this question by Tomasello: >> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047005/the-evolution-of-agency/ >> >> Unfortunately, it is not a good book; he did not nail it, but Tomasello >> is an authority on the subject. It means there is plenty of room for >> other opinions in this discussion. >> >> -Zoltan >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 6:32 AM Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> To friends and acquaintances interested in philosophy, AGI, physics, a >>> new blog post: >>> >>> >>> https://linas.org/blog/2026/09/subjective-being-ness-follows-from-free-will/ >>> >>> The subjective experience of being, living, existing, feeling, >>> experiencing and acting arises precisely because we have free will, because >>> we have the ability to direct and create a future. I claim more: being >>> trapped in the here-and-now is a fact of physics; it can be mathematized. I >>> claim that any agent with executive control over it’s future will also feel >>> alive and aware and experience the subjective inner life of feelings and >>> emotions. This includes not just animals, but also plants and even >>> bacteria. >>> >>> The ingress of possible futures from the Platonic realm into physical >>> reality happens directly in the here-and-now, and the willful selection of >>> possible futures manifests as conscious awareness of the subjective self. >>> >>> This essay is an attempt to put a dent in the "hard problem of >>> consciousness" by placing a mathematical, physical foundation under it. >>> >>> I hope you enjoy it. (p.s. no LLM's or AI's were used to write this; >>> these are my words. It took several years to put this together.) >>> >>> -- Linas Vepstas >>> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> Zoltan Nadasdy >> Dept. of Neurology, Dell Medical School, UT Austin ([email protected]) >> Dept. of Cognitive Psychology, ELTE Budapest [email protected] >> >> http://brainstim.psy.utexas.edu >> >> -- Patrick: Are they laughing at us? Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9e51fc70bbc4e9fc-M67e1c5756cb519f91f98bd3c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
