A large AI system like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(supercomputer)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(supercomputer)> has more transistors
than the human brain has synapses, and mostly AI systems are doing tensor operations,
not working with symbols.
Much of it could an analog system, or biological system like the CL1, if either of those
could provide competitive performance (someday). Even well developed analog systems like
https://mythic.ai/ <https://mythic.ai/> or
https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai
<https://research.ibm.com/projects/analog-ai> aren’t really at the level of TPUs or
GPUs.
Connected to a robot or a network of robots like self-driving taxis would
provide a constant maelstrom of trillions of inputs.
*From:*Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
*Sent:* Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:04 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Will it have free will?
Pieter,
I mostly agree with you about free will. if it exists at all, it is at a
relatively trivial level, like choosing Twizzlers over Red Vines when I buy
licorice.
However, I would strongly disagree with your statement, /"I see no reason to believe
that the human brain and mind possess some uniquely special quality that cannot be
replicated—whether in silicon or artificial biology."/
The fallacy that the brain is *just* another physical symbol system and the
mind is an epiphenomenon of the operation of that system is exactly that—a
simplistic, reductionist, Fallacy—a Cartesian fantasy.
The human organism—*as a whole*—evolved to make sense of the simultaneous and constant
maelstrom of trillions of inputs. The entire organism is involved in
"preprocessing" (aggregating, synthesizing, filtering, etc.) those inputs and
the operation of the brain is totally dependent on that substrate.
Within the brain itself there is specialization, with a subset of the substrate
processed by right or left lobes. *NOTE: the whole brain is always involved in
any cognitive activity.*
The left-brain's contribution to cognition is relatively small. Unfortunately, it is both
easy to describe and looks a lot like how scientists, college professors, and programmers
believe they "think."
I will concede that anything the left-brain can do a computer can do. But that
is almost infinitely remote from what a human mind-organism can do.
BTW the human left-brain shares an interesting trait with LLMs. It lies and
hallucinates, and frequently.
davew
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025, at 8:18 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
First, a quick note on biological computing—it’s a fascinating field. Note
to self: keep an eye on its development.
Now, back to the question: Will it have free will?
I assume this question is based on the premise that humans possess free
will. Personally, I doubt that we do (see the appendix below for Grok’s take on
free will).
However, if humans do have free will, then I believe both silicon-based and
biological computers will eventually develop it as well. While I can’t prove
it, I see no reason to believe that the human brain and mind possess some
uniquely special quality that cannot be replicated—whether in silicon or
artificial biology.
Appendix, Grok's take on free will:
Prompt: Please take a deep dive into free will.
Grok's reply: (https://x.com/i/grok/share/y64vGpfh7PGGYQlos6M7TjrUg
<https://x.com/i/grok/share/y64vGpfh7PGGYQlos6M7TjrUg>)
Key Points
* Research suggests free will is complex, with debates on whether we can
make choices independently of prior causes.
* Some believe free will exists and is compatible with determinism, while
others argue it’s an illusion if everything is predetermined.
* Neuroscience shows brain activity may precede conscious decisions, but
interpretations vary, fueling controversy.
* The concept impacts morality and law, with no clear consensus, making
it a deeply debated topic.
Definition and Philosophical Debate
Free will is generally seen as the ability to make choices not fully
determined by past events or external forces. Philosophers are divided into two
main camps:
* Compatibilists argue that free will can coexist with determinism,
meaning our choices are free if they align with our desires, even if those
desires are caused by prior events. For example, choosing ice cream because you
love sweets is free will, even if your love for sweets was shaped by upbringing.
* Incompatibilists believe free will requires choices not determined by
prior causes. They split into:
o Libertarians, who think free will exists and determinism is false,
suggesting some indeterminacy allows free choices.
o Hard determinists, who say if determinism is true, free will is an
illusion, as all actions are the result of prior causes.
Key arguments include the Consequence Argument, which says if determinism
is true, we can’t choose otherwise, and the Origination Argument, which claims
free will needs us to be the ultimate source of our actions, not external
causes. Compatibilists counter with ideas like Frankfurt’s argument, showing
moral responsibility without the ability to do otherwise, and Strawson’s
reactive attitudes, suggesting our moral judgments persist regardless of
determinism.
Scientific Insights
Neuroscience, particularly studies like Benjamin Libet’s, shows brain activity
(readiness potential) often precedes conscious decision-making, suggesting decisions
might be determined before we’re aware. However, this is debated: some see it as
evidence against free will, while others argue we can still veto actions, preserving
some freedom, especially for significant decisions. Recent research, like a 2023
study challenging Libet’s paradigm, suggests these findings may not fully disprove
free will, as experimental procedures can influence results (Neuroscience News
<https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/>).
Implications and Conclusion
The debate affects how we view morality and law—do we hold people
responsible for crimes if their actions were determined? While no consensus
exists, it seems likely that free will is a useful concept for society, even if
its reality is uncertain. The evidence leans toward a compatibilist view for
practical purposes, but the controversy ensures the discussion continues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Comprehensive Exploration of Free Will: Philosophical, Scientific, and
Societal Dimensions
Free will, the notion that individuals can make choices independently of
deterministic forces, is a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, scientific
research, and societal structures. This exploration delves into its
definitions, historical debates, scientific findings, and broader implications,
offering a detailed survey for those seeking a deeper understanding.
Historical and Philosophical Context
The concept of free will has roots in ancient Greek philosophy and has
evolved through centuries of debate. At its core, free will is often defined as
the capacity to make decisions not wholly determined by prior events or
external influences, allowing for the possibility of choosing otherwise in
identical circumstances. However, this definition varies, leading to divergent
philosophical positions.
Key Philosophical Positions
Philosophers are broadly divided into compatibilists and incompatibilists,
each with nuanced subcategories:
* Compatibilism: This view posits that free will is compatible with
determinism. Compatibilists argue that freedom lies in acting according to
one’s own desires and preferences, even if those are determined by prior
causes. For instance, choosing to eat ice cream because you enjoy sweets is
considered free, even if your preference was shaped by upbringing.
o Hierarchical View: Proposed by Harry Frankfurt, this suggests free will
involves a harmony between first-order desires (what we want) and second-order
desires (what we want to want). If these align, we have free will, regardless of
determinism (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/>).
o Reasons-Responsive View: John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza argue
that free will is present if an agent can respond to reasons for action, such
as deciding to walk a dog based on the need for exercise, even in a
deterministic framework.
* Incompatibilism: This stance holds that free will cannot coexist with
determinism, splitting into two camps:
o Libertarianism: Advocates believe free will exists and requires
indeterminism, suggesting that some choices are not fully determined, possibly
due to quantum mechanics. They argue for a non-physical aspect to
decision-making, allowing genuine freedom.
o Hard Determinism: This position accepts determinism and concludes
free will is an illusion, as all actions are the inevitable result of prior
causes, leaving no room for alternative choices.
The debate hinges on definitions of freedom. Incompatibilists often define
free will as the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same
circumstances, while compatibilists argue that “same circumstances” includes
internal states, allowing for different choices if those states differ.
Major Arguments
To illustrate, consider the following table summarizing key arguments from
both sides, drawn from philosophical literature:
*Position*
*Main Arguments*
*Key Details and Examples*
*References/URLs*
Against Free Will (Incompatibilism)
-
Consequence Argument
: If determinism is true, no one has a choice about the future (Section 4a).
- Based on fixed past and laws of nature; uses modal operators ☐
(necessary) and N (no choice); concludes no free will if determinism is true
(e.g., Lincoln's assassination fixed).
Ginet (1966), van Inwagen (1983)
-
Origination Argument
: Free will requires being the originator of actions; determinism prevents
this (Section 4b).
- Valid argument: Premises 1 (free will needs origination), 2 (determinism
means external causation), 3 (no origination if externally caused); concludes
no free will if determinism is true (e.g., brainwashing vs. self-origin).
Kane (1998)
For Free Will (Compatibilism)
-
Rejecting Incompatibilist Arguments
: Denies Origination Argument's premise 1 using hierarchical or
reasons-responsive views (Section 5a).
- Hierarchical view (Frankfurt, 1971): Free will is 1st/2nd-order desire
mesh, compatible with determinism. Reasons-responsive view (Fischer and
Ravizza, 1998): Free if responsive to reasons, e.g., Allison's dog walk
decision.
Frankfurt (1971), Fischer and Ravizza (1998)
-
Frankfurt’s Argument
: Moral responsibility possible without ability to do otherwise (Section
5b).
- Example: Allison decides to walk dog, chip ensures decision if she
didn't, but chip unused; still morally responsible despite no alternative
(Section 5b).
Frankfurt (1969), Widerker and McKenna (2003)
-
Strawson’s Reactive Attitudes
: Moral responsibility based on reactive attitudes, unaffected by
determinism (Section 5c).
- Reactive attitudes (gratitude, resentment) persist despite determinism;
not undermined for moral agents (e.g., bumping into someone vs. being pushed);
supports compatibilism.
P. Strawson (1963)
Pessimism
- Free will impossible whether determinism or indeterminism is true
(Section 3c).
- If determined, no control; if indeterministic (e.g., reasons occur
randomly), control still lacking, e.g., Allison's dog walk decision based on
chance.
Broad (1952), G. Strawson (1994)
The Consequence Argument, for instance, uses modal logic to argue that if
determinism is true, the past and laws of nature fix the future, leaving no
room for choice (e.g., Lincoln’s assassination was inevitable). The Origination
Argument adds that free will requires being the source of actions, which
determinism undermines, as seen in cases like brainwashing, where actions are
externally caused.
Compatibilists counter with Frankfurt’s thought experiment, where an agent
is responsible for a decision even if a device ensures the outcome, but doesn’t
intervene, showing responsibility without alternative possibilities. Peter
Strawson’s reactive attitudes further support this, arguing that our natural
responses like resentment or gratitude persist regardless of determinism,
maintaining moral responsibility.
Scientific Investigations
Scientific research, particularly in neuroscience, has added a new dimension to
the debate. Benjamin Libet’s 1983 study, using electroencephalography (EEG), found
that brain activity (readiness potential) precedes conscious awareness of deciding to
move, suggesting decisions might be determined before we’re aware (Neuroscience of
Free Will Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will>).
This has been interpreted as evidence against free will, supporting hard determinism.
However, criticisms abound. Recent research, such as a 2023 study by Dmitry
Bredikhin, challenges Libet’s paradigm, finding that readiness potential may not
correlate directly with decisions and that experimental procedures can influence
results, suggesting Libet’s findings may not conclusively disprove free will
(Neuroscience News <https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/>).
Additionally, some argue that even if brain activity initiates actions, we can veto
them, preserving a form of free will, especially for significant decisions like
choosing a career over a trivial finger movement.
Other studies, like Uri Maoz’s 2019 research, explored meaningful choices, such as
deciding which nonprofit receives a $1,000 donation, finding that brain activity patterns
differ for decisions with real consequences, potentially supporting free will in important
contexts (The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
<https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2024/04/science-supports-the-existence-of-free-will>).
Conversely, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky argues comprehensively that free will doesn’t
exist, viewing actions as the sum of biology and environment, with no room for independent
choice (New Scientist
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2398369-why-free-will-doesnt-exist-according-to-robert-sapolsky/>).
Societal and Practical Implications
The debate has profound implications for morality, law, and personal identity. If
free will is an illusion, can we hold criminals responsible for their actions, or
should we see them as products of their circumstances? Psychological experiments show
that undermining belief in free will can increase cheating behavior, suggesting its
belief is crucial for social order (The Atlantic
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/>).
Conversely, believing in free will supports systems of reward, punishment, and
personal responsibility, deeply embedded in legal and ethical frameworks.
Quantum Mechanics and Beyond
Some speculate that quantum indeterminacy, where events are probabilistic
rather than deterministic, could provide a basis for free will, allowing for
non-determined choices. However, this is debated, with critics arguing that
randomness doesn’t equate to freedom, as it lacks control. This remains a
speculative area, with no consensus, adding another layer to the complexity.
Conclusion
The question of free will remains unresolved, with philosophical arguments
like the Consequence and Origination supporting incompatibilism, and
compatibilist responses like Frankfurt’s and Strawson’s offering a middle
ground. Scientific findings, while challenging, do not conclusively disprove
free will, with recent research suggesting room for freedom in meaningful
decisions. Given its societal importance, it seems likely that free will, even
if partially illusory, is a valuable concept for maintaining moral and legal
systems. The controversy ensures the debate will continue, reflecting
humanity’s enduring quest to understand our agency in a potentially
deterministic universe.
Key Citations
* Free Will Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/>
* Free Will Is Only an illusion if You Are, Too Scientific American
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/>
* There's No Such Thing as Free Will The Atlantic
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/>
* Neuroscience of Free Will Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will>
* A Fresh Look at Free Will: Challenging the Libet Paradigm Neuroscience News
<https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/>
* Science supports the existence of free will The Johns Hopkins News-Letter
<https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2024/04/science-supports-the-existence-of-free-will>
* Why free will doesn't exist, according to Robert Sapolsky New Scientist
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2398369-why-free-will-doesnt-exist-according-to-robert-sapolsky/>
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 21:18, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
https://corticallabs.com/research.html
<https://corticallabs.com/research.html>
