I agree with Aaron. The whole concept of free will is problematic. The "free" is problematic, and not to mention the "will". The two together are just nonsense. Yet, we all know what it means in conversations. "Can we make up our mind?"
Since the math of nonlinear dynamics and the 3-body problem made it clear that most of the processes (changes) in the universe are unpredictable. The outcomes of nonlinear processes are unpredictable. We can only simulate those. Moreover, even if we know the coordinate of each particle in the universe (which we cannot of course because of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) like Laplace's demon would do, and we want to run the simulation in our supercomputer that needs a memory to contain all those coordinates (which is a nonsense again), that computer also need to model itself as part of the universe. Then we run into contradiction, because the computer cannot be part and not part of itself at the same time. Hence, the concept of "free will" is flawed. However, if we ask: can the brain make up its mind? That boils down to the question: can the brain toss a coin by imagination? Is this question about the deterministic vs. nondeterministic world, or something else? If it is, then we are back to square one (above). If not, then we can further speculate. -Zoltan -z On Sun, Sep 20, 2026 at 3:18 PM Aaron Nitzkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Linas, there is no free will, because it's not even a coherent concept. > Seriously. It's just a phrase. What would it be, if it is neither > deterministic nor random? Free will is an illusion created by complexity. > Everything that happens in this universe is deterministic within the limits > of the uncertainty principle, yet unpredictable, due to complexity. If we > had perfect cognizance of everything going on in our brains, we would not > talk about free will; we would just cite all the reasons that we do what we > do. You can't predict the future for two reasons: one, because nothing is > fully determinate (the uncertainty principle), and two, because even if it > were, events are too complex to compute, even ideally. There are just too > many atoms and forces at play in any event, with all of the positions and > energies having some uncertainty. In a human mind, there are an indefinite > number of forces / feelings / ideas impacting on every decision, > unconsciously. We call the result, 'free will.' It is basically an illusion > caused by self-ignorance. > > Bet you didn't think I read these! > Best, > Aaron > > On Sunday, September 20, 2026 at 03:34:29 PM EDT, Linas Vepstas < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "opencog" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA3622L4G5Ez%2Bw6eGuN5sytb-w42pDDGXnmKFQYJD-hTiXA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA3622L4G5Ez%2Bw6eGuN5sytb-w42pDDGXnmKFQYJD-hTiXA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- --- 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 ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9e51fc70bbc4e9fc-Mdc1e57026b7ed9db1bca7a02 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
