Free will isn’t about magic or causality. Framing it like that just shows you misunderstand the concept of free will.
We’re bound by circumstances and possibility, yes. That doesn’t contradict free will, because free will is about self-determination: being able to choose a course of action from among the possibilities, rather than being compelled one way or the other by some extrinsic force such as fate.
For example, say you go to a restaurant. They give you the menu. You get to choose anything on the menu, and maybe even make a special request, and no one is compelling you to choose one thing or another.
They might say “No, we can’t do that” when you ask if they can substitute hush puppies for a side. That’s not a contravention of your free will, they might just not have hush puppies.
Just because the menu doesn’t include everything in the universe doesn’t mean you don’t have free will when choosing an option.
Also, free will doesn’t contradict god being omniscient or omnipotent. I don’t know why you keep implying that it does, but you haven’t presented any rationale for why we should suppose that.
This doesn’t mean I believe in a god, by the way. I’m just telling you that your logic about free will and omnipotence doesn’t add up.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Those things might all influence the choice you make on the menu, but none of them forces you to choose anything. You’re still the one making the choice. The things you’ve mentioned are about the web of conditionality, not determinism.
And your second to last paragraph assumes predestination, which not all christian denominations believe. So that argument only applies to presbyterians and other calvinists. And anyone who buys the prosperity gospel scam.
And which part of you is the “you” making that final choice? Which part evaluates all of the conditions to make the decision, the part that isn’t determined by your hormones and brain chemistry at the time?
Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s the soul, unless you have evidence that it exists at all.
You’re asking questions that neuroscientists don’t even have the answers to. But if all of that was predetermined by your biology, then humans would be nothing more than computers.
So if that’s the case, then you must be the type to believe that LLMs can evolve into AGI. After all, these stupid soulless meat computers in our skulls were able to develop emergent consciousness, or at least a very good imitation of it, so good in fact that it even fools us into believing that we’re conscious and have free will, when actually we’re just stupid soulless meat computers.
No idea how you got to the LLM conclusion, as they operate on completely different principles.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special, because humans would be “nothing more” than computers. Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
Doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have free will though. Although I’m almost certain that if the abrahamic god exists, we definitely do not.
Because you’re saying that humans are biological computers. That’s the same underlying belief that leads some people to think that LLMs can grow into AGI. “Well human brains are just really complex computers with emergent intelligence, so digital computers should be able to do the same!” It’s a theory I disagree with. I’m merely pointing out that it’s where your line of reasoning leads.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special
It’s not about feeling special. Humans are more than just biological computers.
Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
That’s a theory, without enough evidence to confirm. Framing it as “turns out actually that” ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it’s some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
Yeah, some people (who don’t understand how LLMs work) think that LLMs can grow into AGI. The fact is that neurobiology is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any AI we have. Even if we did try to model a new AI after biological neurons, I still don’t think it would be a good solution for AGI, since it will probably get things wrong as often as a human would. But LLMs are just fundamentally not going to get us to AGI, in the same way that building a taller ladder will never get us to the moon.
But that’s just because LLMs lack the complexity required to exhibit emergent behavior (beyond what it was specifically designed to do), and even if it did, or we found some other framework that could lead to AGI, I’m not sure we’d ever have the compute to facilitate such emergence.
But that also doesn’t mean that emergent intelligence cannot exist. So no, I disagree that that is where my reasoning leads.
Humans are more than just biological computers
I never said anything about computers, you did. I’m just talking about the biochemical substrate from which our bodies work. I’m very curious, though, about what you mean by “more than biological computers”. I’m going to assume it’s consciousness, awareness, whatever. Is it some part of us that doesn’t have some roots in our biochemistry?
I’d like to know which part of us you think that mind-altering drugs act on. Alcohol inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and our decision-making capability is diminished as a result. Psilocybin, LSD, and other hallucinogens affect how we perceive the world. SSRIs and other antidepressants generally tend to improve mood. Xanax alleviates anxiety. Anesthetics cause a loss of consciousness (as do a lot of things).
I agree that humans are more than the “biological robots” I mentioned, but I am not sure we agree on why. I would say it’s because of emergent complexity, but if you say it is something else, then I’d like to know how you explain the effects of the drugs I listed (majority of which we know the biochemical mechanism) on human cognition. Or how we can detect changes in brain activity for different scenarios or neurodegenerative disease in fMRI.
That’s a theory, without enough evidence to confirm
Yes, it is a theory, but it has mountains of evidence behind it. It’s not “confirmed reality” but it matches and explains all of the data we have. It’s the theory of evolution by natural selection. The only thing that matters is the gene. Everything else is to help the gene’s existence persist. You eat energy-rich foods, that helps your survival, and your genes make sure you feel good for it. You make friends, that’s forming a social bond, helping your survival, and your mental health improves. You have sex, that’s propagating the gene, and so the gene makes sure your body is organized in a way that makes it feel good.
Framing it as “turns out actually that” ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it’s some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
And saying “humans are more than just biological computers” isn’t presenting a hypothesis as confirmed reality?
Free will isn’t about magic or causality. Framing it like that just shows you misunderstand the concept of free will.
We’re bound by circumstances and possibility, yes. That doesn’t contradict free will, because free will is about self-determination: being able to choose a course of action from among the possibilities, rather than being compelled one way or the other by some extrinsic force such as fate.
For example, say you go to a restaurant. They give you the menu. You get to choose anything on the menu, and maybe even make a special request, and no one is compelling you to choose one thing or another.
They might say “No, we can’t do that” when you ask if they can substitute hush puppies for a side. That’s not a contravention of your free will, they might just not have hush puppies.
Just because the menu doesn’t include everything in the universe doesn’t mean you don’t have free will when choosing an option.
Also, free will doesn’t contradict god being omniscient or omnipotent. I don’t know why you keep implying that it does, but you haven’t presented any rationale for why we should suppose that.
This doesn’t mean I believe in a god, by the way. I’m just telling you that your logic about free will and omnipotence doesn’t add up.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
Those things might all influence the choice you make on the menu, but none of them forces you to choose anything. You’re still the one making the choice. The things you’ve mentioned are about the web of conditionality, not determinism.
And your second to last paragraph assumes predestination, which not all christian denominations believe. So that argument only applies to presbyterians and other calvinists. And anyone who buys the prosperity gospel scam.
And which part of you is the “you” making that final choice? Which part evaluates all of the conditions to make the decision, the part that isn’t determined by your hormones and brain chemistry at the time?
Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s the soul, unless you have evidence that it exists at all.
You’re asking questions that neuroscientists don’t even have the answers to. But if all of that was predetermined by your biology, then humans would be nothing more than computers.
So if that’s the case, then you must be the type to believe that LLMs can evolve into AGI. After all, these stupid soulless meat computers in our skulls were able to develop emergent consciousness, or at least a very good imitation of it, so good in fact that it even fools us into believing that we’re conscious and have free will, when actually we’re just stupid soulless meat computers.
Eh?
No idea how you got to the LLM conclusion, as they operate on completely different principles.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special, because humans would be “nothing more” than computers. Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
Doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have free will though. Although I’m almost certain that if the abrahamic god exists, we definitely do not.
Because you’re saying that humans are biological computers. That’s the same underlying belief that leads some people to think that LLMs can grow into AGI. “Well human brains are just really complex computers with emergent intelligence, so digital computers should be able to do the same!” It’s a theory I disagree with. I’m merely pointing out that it’s where your line of reasoning leads.
It’s not about feeling special. Humans are more than just biological computers.
That’s a theory, without enough evidence to confirm. Framing it as “turns out actually that” ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it’s some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
Yeah, some people (who don’t understand how LLMs work) think that LLMs can grow into AGI. The fact is that neurobiology is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any AI we have. Even if we did try to model a new AI after biological neurons, I still don’t think it would be a good solution for AGI, since it will probably get things wrong as often as a human would. But LLMs are just fundamentally not going to get us to AGI, in the same way that building a taller ladder will never get us to the moon.
But that’s just because LLMs lack the complexity required to exhibit emergent behavior (beyond what it was specifically designed to do), and even if it did, or we found some other framework that could lead to AGI, I’m not sure we’d ever have the compute to facilitate such emergence.
But that also doesn’t mean that emergent intelligence cannot exist. So no, I disagree that that is where my reasoning leads.
I never said anything about computers, you did. I’m just talking about the biochemical substrate from which our bodies work. I’m very curious, though, about what you mean by “more than biological computers”. I’m going to assume it’s consciousness, awareness, whatever. Is it some part of us that doesn’t have some roots in our biochemistry?
I’d like to know which part of us you think that mind-altering drugs act on. Alcohol inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and our decision-making capability is diminished as a result. Psilocybin, LSD, and other hallucinogens affect how we perceive the world. SSRIs and other antidepressants generally tend to improve mood. Xanax alleviates anxiety. Anesthetics cause a loss of consciousness (as do a lot of things).
I agree that humans are more than the “biological robots” I mentioned, but I am not sure we agree on why. I would say it’s because of emergent complexity, but if you say it is something else, then I’d like to know how you explain the effects of the drugs I listed (majority of which we know the biochemical mechanism) on human cognition. Or how we can detect changes in brain activity for different scenarios or neurodegenerative disease in fMRI.
Yes, it is a theory, but it has mountains of evidence behind it. It’s not “confirmed reality” but it matches and explains all of the data we have. It’s the theory of evolution by natural selection. The only thing that matters is the gene. Everything else is to help the gene’s existence persist. You eat energy-rich foods, that helps your survival, and your genes make sure you feel good for it. You make friends, that’s forming a social bond, helping your survival, and your mental health improves. You have sex, that’s propagating the gene, and so the gene makes sure your body is organized in a way that makes it feel good.
And saying “humans are more than just biological computers” isn’t presenting a hypothesis as confirmed reality?