Do we really have it? Do we need it?
If we do or not, what difference, at this point, does it make?
…sorry. Got sidetracked in mid-sentence, there. But I can’t imagine any way to approach our decisionmaking based on not having free will, that is any more beneficial than assuming we do.
If none of us has it, there is no mortal exempt from that disability — and thus no one who can take command and direct us to make decisions more effectively than we already do.
I choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
But if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Well, if free will is defined by the inability to fully predict decisions (at least inside the universe), there are technological approaches to restore it. For example, if all your decisions have two possible outcomes (they can be closely related, just different in some meaningful way) and you choose between the two options with a quantum measurement of the spin of some particle (in other words, a flip of a “quantum coin”), then you have a degree of unpredictability that preserves free will as we understand it.
Which may be less beneficial than simply making your own decision on the assumption, regardless of its validity, of having free will.
This article is saying nothing about free will. It is talking about consciousness.
The process of making a decision freely doesn’t require all aspects being something we are aware of. It is equally obvious that decisions in human brains are not some sequential algorithm. One of the problems with A.I. is thinking it can come from the ‘right’ algorithm.
I’ve noticed that the anti-free-will research is almost always based on pathetically-small sample sizes.
Comments are closed.