Chat GPT does not have free will, because unlike a human being, it cannot commit suicide.
davew On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Could someone please take a definite position? Can ChatGPT have free will > or not. If not, why not? > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm > *Sent:* Monday, June 9, 2025 12:01 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? > > If you want to explain free will by entanglement then I would say free will > is the opposite - a kind of un-entanglement or emergence. > > A biological system which grows while learning a language is an entangled > system where two systems are merged into one, both entangled in the same > structures. It is based on different codes stored in the same substance. > > > Then you start to untangle them - for instance by self-consciousness - and > get the biological animal on the one hand and the ghost in the machine on the > other hand. A free will which is neither trapped by biological needs nor by > advertising, brands and marketing would be the essence of a ghost in the > machine, right? Although ghost buster Gilbert Ryle says such thing does not > exist. > > > > -J. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> > Date: 6/9/25 6:19 PM (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? > > Here’s an idea that’s been helping me to procrastinate. > 1. Suppose that spacetime is an embedding of entanglement. An evolved > quantum error correcting code (QEC) that enables a network to form geometries > like the reality we see. > > 2. Suppose the Big Bang the result of a unifying supermassive black hole. > > 3. Like other black holes, it had high entropy. > > 4. That final black hole, lacking an exterior, launches a new universe. > > 5. The new universe might appear to be smooth in its geometric expansion, but > that would only because of the embedded QEC. It would be rich with unseen > entanglement that was not subject to the QEC. > > 6. In this view, universes could evolve or even be nested. Universes with > no or crude QECs would be unstable and prone to collapse. Universes with > strong QECs could have orderly environments where life could emerge, as Eric > describes in his book. > 7. A Big Crunch would be like checkpointing a virtual machine. The evolved > QECs could still be in the checkpoint and cause the next version of the > universe to inherit its desirable properties. Maybe it would be like a > junkyard with some interesting parts that would find novel uses in the next > go. > > 8. Speculating further, very sophisticated civilizations (after billions of > years) might discover how to stack the deck to invent new metaphysics at the > next Big Bang. Simple beings, like humans – not being billions of years old > -- might invent words for that like God. > > 9. The whole thing could be deterministic and not facilitate any free will! > > Now I should get back to work. > > *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp > <[email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, June 8, 2025 at 10:38 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[FRIAM] Free will—ghost in the machine or just clever wiring? > Seth Lloyd’s Turing test for free will > (https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/lloyd/Turing_Test.pdf) > is to consciousness what EPR was to quantum physics: a challenge to the > theory's completeness. EPR said quantum weirdness must hide something deeper; > Bell said “let's test that”—and nature replied, “nope, it’s weird all the way > down.” Nobel Prize, case closed. > > Lloyd asks: can we prove the mind is just machinery? His test says: build a > machine that behaves indistinguishably from a human and believes it has free > will. If you succeed—great. But failure proves nothing. > > Unlike Bell’s inequality, this test can only confirm, never deny. No > ghost-busting here. > > Until then? It’s speculation. The Standard Model explains almost > everything—except the quantum gremlins and how observation messes things up. > So maybe the mind still has an ace up its sleeve. Or a soul. Or a bug in the > code. > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > *Attachments:* > • smime.p7s
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
