I recently published a short story, The Oak Edition - which forms one of the many stories in an anthology of fiction that I would like to write.
The next one that I want to write is about a scientist making a discovery, an irrefutable revelation that free will does not exist. I will be researching both sides of the argument, but as I like to listen to things as I do... other things, I was putting the clothes away earlier today, and listening to a fascinating discussion between Robert Sapolsky and the Big Think YouTube channel.
I have also managed to regain access to my univeristy library's digital catalogue, so I have access to a lot of academic journals. Research is going to be an important part of writing a convincing story, and Sapolsky, in this interview, provides some fascinating experimental evidence about free will being a fabrication of our own minds.
Separately from this incredibly interesting (and at times mind-bending) discussion, I can see how the principles discussed here about a concept called distributed causality where every event can be interlinked through a chain of events mirror the pyschohistory discussed in Asimov's Foundation series.
Further to this video, which is just a taste of what the argument against the existence of free will is, there's a great deal of discussion here about emergence. It is a topic that I've thought about in relation to AI and conciousness - in that, once you achieve a certain level of simulating a human brain, that consciousness is something that naturally emerges.
Sapolsky discusses this in a really simple way. Take a single ant, and they look aimless and pointless. Take ten, and they are still chaotic, and we can't understand them, but take 10,000 of them, then you ants enslaving aphids, working to support the nest, each having individual and distinct jobs in the hive mind.
He also goes on to talk about how our frontal cortex takes something like twenty five years to become fully mature. The perspective he brings about genetic predisposition being something that is actively fought by the frontal context, yet, while also being a part of our genetic code, being a truly interesting thing - because it is what lets nature change us, beyond what our genetics pre-ordain.
It is hard to articulate these things in the sheer simplicity that Sapolsky does, and I've got a lot more reading and listening to do to fully wrap my head around his arguments that free will doesn't exist.
Causality, the environment and the complex topic of distributed causality is particularly interesting to me, because, well, physical and biological processes are rather like computer programs. For a given input, you're guaranteed a given output at a chemical and atomic level.
Therefore, each and everyone of those inputs (of which there are many billions) has a given output, and in concert, they self organise into an outcome that causes change, and we are just vessels observing that change.
It is the influences and the factors that we cannot understand or fathom that Sapolsky asserts as the cause of free will being nothing more than an illusion.
This is a topic that I will continue to explore, in order to try and build a convincing story around this topic.
This post has been shared on Reddit by @uwelang through the HivePosh initiative.
I am off and on with this topic. Its fascinating and, also - who cares?
Depends on the day of the week I guess. But all I know, whatever the answer anyone might believe - I am definitely having a human experience.
Agreed. Happy to be a passenger, but would like to think I have some influence.
I shared this story on reddit in the philosophy sub and got a nice reply lol - but you already are there :-)
I want to learn!
Yeah i know - some subs have mods that expect deep knowledge on everything though - most delete shares then
Well its not a place and expect my writing to be shared, but I am having a decent comment chain over there which is helping contribute to my minds exploration of the topic.
This post was intended as a mere thinking out loud: to note down my thoughts on various bits of research so that when I sit down to write the creative fiction aboit free will, I at least have some basis in the study people way smarter than me have already completed.
Yeah saw it - hope some fruitful hints come for you :-)
Deeply appreciate it. Wish such comment was the norm on hive. Maybe in the future. :)
Oh goodie. This looks exciting and just like my cup of tea, so am bookmarking for a little later. I've heard amazing things about Sapolsky, though have yet to delve deeper into his stuff. This might be just the thing, right?
Also, I'm impressed with how thorough your research is for a story. And speaking of which, I'm gonna go read yours. :)
I look forward to your thoughts on both! The story I link here isn't the one - I'm still thoroughly thinking and ... thinking about thinking about how I'm going to write a story without any free will.
I hope that you use your "free will" - whatever that is, to coerce me into future responses on these topics.
Also, if you get really bored, go read the reddit thread where this post was shared - there's an enormous amount of stuff for me to digest from the comments there, too :)
I watched this a while ago on that matter, pretty depressing if it's you don't have a free will
Sapolsky himself talks about other research that looks at how many orders of magnitude quantum chaos has to increase by for the sub-atomic particules to influence a molecule.
Something like 23. That's an enormous number, but there's also an enormous number of molecules that make up a human.
Its an interesting, super simplified description in this video, though :) Thanks for sharing it!
I like this post, talking about the ants reminded me of this video from ants canada he knows a lot about ants and id find it interesting to see what would happen if there were more ants isolated from their queen. The video seems interesting I find it mildly infuriating at times to hear a person telling me I have no free will instead of saying that based on x info makes him personally believe this. Thats my opinion "based on my life experiences and genetics".
I don't like Neil Degrasse Tyson for this reason, he blabs out facts 24/7 talking as if what he says IS 100% true and people believe it because he's "smarter", maybe that's something that bothers me personally but I will listen to anything.
Yeah, absolutely, citations needed. Nothing is fact, can only have overwhelming evidence supporting that it is.