[FRIAM] Will it have free will?

[Prof David West]

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)
> 
> 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:
>    • Libertarians, who think free will exists and determinism is false, suggesting some indeterminacy allows free choices.
>    • 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.
>    • 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/>).
>    • 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:
>    • 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.
>    • 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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>> https://corticallabs.com/research.html____
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> 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/
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250306/92b3d54d/attachment.html>