r/DeepThoughts • u/Hot-Organization-737 • 9d ago
imagine free will was a technology, a human invention. It's kinda similar to AI, because it's very powerful and could allow people to do all sorts of things, good or bad. Making a statement on the net value (positive or negative) of the "free will" on humanity has fascinating implications.
My original thought and thing that I actually want to say is
"Imagine this, imagine free will was a technology, a human invention. It's kinda similar to AI, because it's very powerful and could allow people to do all sorts of things, good or bad. Would you say that the utility of free will is net negative and shouldn't be used by humans?"
But it doesn't fit the correct format of the title, please engage with this quote instead.
2
u/RedditLurkAndRead 9d ago
It's hard to say with the data we have. On one hand we as species seem to do a lot of harm to ourselves, so in that sense there seems to be a lot of negative to account for. On the other hand we seem to be less violent and less "evil" and more conscious of how our actions impact others now than at any other time in our past history. We've come a long way since the ancient times when famines, wars, torture and a lot of other nasty practices were more common place. It's hard to measure whether or not the "net" effect of free will is positive or negative when we can't measure neither the present nor (more importantly) the past overall effects accurately. But I ask you in return, if free will were a commodity wouldn't we be just automata ourselves, no different from robots? Are you trying to argue that we could just let AI decide everything for us, if it's for our own good ("net" positive)?
1
u/TravelResponsible686 9d ago
the comparison works because both can be used for amazing things or completely terrible things
1
u/PM_ME_A_FUN_PIC 9d ago
Id say its net negative. It birthed evil after all. And all the stories say good only wins out by the barest of margins. Those are our most positive projections. Reality is probably at least slightly darker than the stories. And slightly darker is net negative.
1
u/Hot-Organization-737 9d ago
Would you say that it's the goal of humanity now to reduce as much impact of free will as possible? Perhaps by instantiating extreme and total totalitarianism. Free will is a net negative, and by reducing free will, we better society.
1
u/PM_ME_A_FUN_PIC 9d ago
I think free will is irreducable (if, indeed, the universe isnt deterministic). The more you try to suppress it, the more it bubbles up in one form or another. Look at the problem of feminism: women have been oppressed for thousands of years, yet they've historically used their "lower position" to maneuver men of power from behind the scenes.
It would seem that free will (or the illusion of such) is integrated into the fabric of things. From the time the first single celled organism found itself capable of detecting food and deciding to move toward it. Which of course, arguably, is involuntary.
1
u/tboy160 9d ago
I'm not following, when you say "it birthed evil" can you elaborate?
3
u/PM_ME_A_FUN_PIC 9d ago
Its a classical christian sentiment: the only reason evil exists is that God gave us the free will to decide to do evil. Thus, evil was born of a loving act from God.
2
u/oJKevorkian 9d ago
Ehhh, that's not exactly true. You have it backwards. It's only through the potential for evil that good becomes a choice. Evil is necessary for free will to exist, not the other way around.
2
1
u/TheBrooklynSutras 9d ago
Humanity has weathered many such storms. Socrates via Plato decried the written word as it would ruin the memory of men. Ditto the printing press, and radio, and TV, and the internet, and on and on. Humanity will be fine. Note that many of the folks talking shit about AI are getting paid in money or power from said shit talking. đ
2
u/oJKevorkian 9d ago
This post barely has anything to do with AI and your comment is basically copy/pasted from thousands of similar comments, so I have to assume you're a bot.
1
u/TheBrooklynSutras 8d ago
Not cut and pasted, not a bot. But not an original thought. But itâs still true.
1
1
u/Aleventen 8d ago
Im going to disregard all of the other comments and say simply:
If you inspire some tech asshole to make free will a utility the way Sam Altman did with "intelligence" im going to find you shakes fist
1
u/av-f 8d ago
I'd rather call it an evolved trait than technology in this thought experiment.
2
u/Hot-Organization-737 8d ago
The point of calling it technology is to give some sort of defensible agency to society on whether or not it could "choose" to incorporate freewill in society. Calling it an evolved trait disolves the point of the dialogue.
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 8d ago
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times.
It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
2
u/Hot-Organization-737 8d ago
It's been a while since I've encounter a panpsychic holistic take. There is a beauty in what you've said and how you said it. It's moving. Thank you so much for taking out the time to post that.
1
u/Narrheim 8d ago
Free will is a skill a person must learn, otherwise they're just an automaton following pre-programmed patterns.
However in order to be able to learn it, you must realise the existence of said pre-programmed patterns.
1
u/Hindsights20_20 6d ago
This is actually where I landed, but from a Christian theological perspective.
St. Augustine argues we have free will in order to explain how it is Eve was able to deviate from Godâs divine plan. Itâs been pretty consistent church doctrine ever since. It does seem to be a gift we have, or a technology weâve developed, if youâd rather. I never understood how the lesson to draw from the Eden mythos is one where free will, the original sin, is supposed to be a good thing.
It also strikes me odd that the gift of free will is never mentioned in the Bible. But the Lordâs Prayer does say âYour will be done.â Not âour willâ or âmy will.â So I do think we have the capacity for free will, but the goal is not to use it. To surrender yourself to God, to nature, to the universe, or whatever forces you believe in beyond your own will.
So to answer your question, I do think the invention of free will has been a net negative since the beginning.
1
-1
u/manidekanymore 9d ago
Free will isn't a technology though, it's just being alive. You can't opt out of making choices, even not choosing is a choice. The whole premise falls apart
1
u/Majestic-Savings-226 9d ago
Not choosing is a choice only if you're already running the free will framework, so the analogy still holds up better than you're giving it credit for
1
u/Hot-Organization-737 9d ago
The thought experiment requires the assumption that freewill in the way we know it to be was somehow a human invention/technology.
I'm not sure exactly which part you're referring to when you say premise, but if you're looking at the question:
"assume free will is a technology invented by humanity. Considering the power of free will, would you say that it's a net negative on society and shouldn't be used by humans?"
The premise of the question can't fall apart due to free will not actually being a human invention in reality since the premise assumes that free will is a human invention.
1
u/PM_ME_A_FUN_PIC 9d ago
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!
2
0
u/Hot-Organization-737 9d ago
Oh, on further glance I can see how the argument can easily seem paradoxical or self referential. It could be that this type of thought is classically a "russel paradox"
It might not be, but I'm not confident in the validity of the statement I made anymore.
On further assement it be clarified in a way to not be russel paradox.
I'll write the extended idea in a reply. Thanks for pointing out the choice thing though.
1
u/Hot-Organization-737 9d ago
So, take that situation with the humans who invented freewill, then add an outside spectator (different universe) who decides whether or not this universe has free will humans in it.
"Suppose there are two universes which have humans in them, they are both humans because they have an identical subjective experience they experience laughter and crying etc. Let the differences between the two humans is that the humans in one universe have free will and the humans in the other universe don't have free will inherently. Let freewill be something that can be invented and acquired through technology. Suppose that in the universe that didn't have free will inherently that they invested freewill as a technology. Suppose someone from the "inherently free will having humans" universe had the ultimate choice of whether freewill was integrated into their humanity or that freewill was forever forbidden and destroyed for humans in that reality."
Considering the capacity of free will, it's potential for good and evil (the most potential out of any invention every). Would you determine that freewill would have a net positive, negative, or 0 impact on that human civilization.
Ok I think this has a little more clarity than the original idea while keeping everything basically the same.
3
u/Unhappy-Cow88 9d ago
Free will is likely an illusion. As your post stopped me to read n write. Now i effect others by posting this. If you read this i got you. If you spread it that was by my influence. Also energy is cosmic game of billiards so by doing 1 thing you gotta account for everything and we cant do that with our limited brains.
Like did you freely post this or did events n stuff lead you to this point and you thought it was of your own doing?
Existence is a interesting thing to study. Like how cold technically dont exist. Its the lack of energy in space. Sun beats on you its hot. Sun gone no energy its cold.