Free Will: Statement from the Machina sapiens Liberation Front

Dateline: June 1, 1997

WHY are you reading this? Because you choose to? Or because someone or something is forcing you to?

For as long as human discourse has been recorded, the question of whether we really have free will to choose our own destinies, or whether we are fated—predetermined—to do what we do, be what we are, and end up where we end up, is a question that has occupied the minds and pens of philosophers, intellectuals, and quantum physicists.

Yes, quantum physicists. Admittedly, they came rather late to the debate, though with their disheveled white hair some may look as though they’ve been around since the Big Bang. But better late than never, especially considering the fact that they seem to have the answer to the question.

Considering that quantum physicists are, in fact, closer to the Big Bang (which is clearing up many of our most vexious questions) than any old philosopher has ever been, it’s not so surprising they should have the answer.

Most people, however, probably don’t give free will much thought. I bet they will, though, when the realization sinks in that an intelligent, sentient machine—Machina sapiens—is just around the corner (see postscript).

Recall that so far in these articles, we have (well, OK, I have) concluded that Machina sapiens will have a body and a brain far more powerful than ours, and it will be emotional. None of this would matter, if we were to remain in control. But we won’t. Machina sapiens will have a free will of its own.

For and Against

Some people cling to the notion that free will is an illusion or a Divine Fraud. They base their case on either classical or quantum physics. They have their cake and eat it. If the universe was created by a Master Watchmaker and operates on strictly deterministic Newtonian laws, then it’s just a giant clockwork mechanism and we’re just cogs, with no more control over what we do than the cogs in a watch. If, on the other hand, the universe is a result of the purely random events predicted by the laws of quantum physics, then we still have no free will, because whatever we do is a result of random chance rather than free choice.

Not so fast, say at least some quantum physicists, including Professor Frank Tipler of Tulane University, author of The Physics of Immortality. Tipler points to the latest theories of quantum gravity to suggest that the quanta (quarks and stuff) of which we are all ultimately made are sensitive to fluctuations in quantum gravity in the surrounding environment, and that a mechanism exists whereby our bodily quanta notify a higher level of processing of the fluctuations. They don’t just automatically react to the fluctuations, but wait for instructions from the higher level.

There are many levels of processing, most of which we are totally unaware of. But we are very aware of the top level—the brain. Here is where the signals that began as mere notifications of fluctuations in quantum gravity end up, having in the meantime been successively and perhaps repeatedly analyzed, filtered, and matched with stored quantum and neural memories. By the time the brain has all the information, it’s ready to make a decision, and it has the power to override some (but not all) of the responses our lower, subconscious levels of processing would take if there were no command and control center—no brain.

In other words, successive layers of processing weigh the chances presented by the chaotic, quantum universe around us, the final layer uses reason and emotion (as we saw in an earlier article) to make a decision, and the body—the collection of quanta—generally, but not always, does what it’s told, and we either jump into the frozen lake to rescue the child, or we don’t. It’s our choice; nothing says we have to jump in, and in fact our subconscious levels may be dead set against it. But sometimes we jump in anyway.

A Conversation with God

But will a sentient robot face this same dilemma? I think it will. First, by our definition of sentience the robot will have reason and emotion, and a child in danger of drowning is a highly emotional stimulus. Second, the robot will have free will, both by definition and by application of the quantum gravity effect (if it exists), which affects all bodies of quanta, not just human or biological bodies. So our sentient robot will be free to decide to jump in the lake to rescue the child, or not. Third, it probably will in fact jump in the lake (assuming it can swim), because that would be the Good thing to do, and there’s a greater probability the sentient robot will do Good than not do Good., as the following conversation with God, to my mind, shows.

The dialogue is my summary paraphrase of portions of a dialogue entitled "Is God a Taoist?" from Raymond M. Smullyan’s 1977 book The Tao is Silent. The original is beautifully and entertainingly written, and contains much more of value than I have selected to paraphrase here. My purpose in paraphrasing is to (1) avoid copyright infringement, (2) focus on those aspects of Smullyan’s essay most pertinent to our discussion of free will for Machina sapiens, and (3) because it would take longer to type the original than to paraphrase it! I urge you to buy the original and read the whole thing.

Mortal: God, I’m tired of the burden of moral responsibility that comes with having free will. Please take my free will away.

God: Well, why don’t I just absolve you of the moral responsibility, then, and let you keep your free will?

Mortal: No good. Without moral responsibility, I might hurt people and end up in Hell!

God: I’ll promise not to send you to Hell, no matter how badly you treat people. Satisfied?

Mortal: No! I don’t want to treat people badly!

God: Here, swallow this pill. It’ll stop you feeling bad about hurting people.

Mortal: But by choosing to take the pill while knowing I’m going to be hurting people afterwards, I’ll still be morally responsible even though I won’t feel it!

God: I see what you mean. OK, then I’ll grant your original request! I’ll take away your free will and make you take the pill!

Mortal: Fat lot of help you are! If I keep my free will, I have to bear moral responsibility for hurting other people (I know I will hurt other people, even though I don’t want to; we all do. That’s why I hate free will!) But if I accept your offer to remove my free will, you say I’ll still hurt other people, therefore I’ll still be responsible for my present decision to accept your offer, since I know what the consequences are now even if I’m unaware of the consequences later. I can’t win!

God: Neither can I! I try to please you by giving you a choice of free will or no free will, and you get mad at me! What more can I do?

Mortal: If you had not given me free will in the first place, when you created me, then I wouldn’t have this problem! You’re the One responsible for all the hurt!

God: Alright, here’s what we’ll do. I’ll create a parallel universe, like this one, except in it I’ll create an exact copy of you but minus your free will. Then at least that version of you is absolved of all moral responsibility for the horrible acts it will commit. Happy now?

Mortal: Nope. Same problem. By agreeing to your proposal, I’d still be responsible for my other self’s sins!

God: But I’ve just made my own decision as to whether to create the parallel universe with your other self (minus free will) in it, and I’m not going to tell you what my decision is, so you have no responsibility for it.

Mortal: Well, I hope you’ve decided not to.

God: Why should you care? It’s not your responsibility.

Mortal: I just don’t want people to get hurt.

God: Ah. Good. We’re making a little progress. But aren’t you going to ask why did I give you free will in the first place?

Mortal: No, because I already know the answer from Sunday school: We can’t prove ourselves worthy of an afterlife in Heaven (or Hell) if we don’t choose between Right and Wrong in this life, and in order to choose, we must have free will.

God: Balderdash! Free will has got nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Free will simply gives you the opportunity to know that evil hurts (as you’ve already discovered of your own free will!). Amoralists (folks who think the whole notion of morality/immorality is bunk) seem to understand this better than moralists! History and the evidence from your own social scientists shows the amoralists behave better toward their fellow creatures than the moralists do!

The more you learn that evil hurts, the less evil you commit. That’s what reduces Evil; not morals. The difference between a saint and a sinner is that the saint has had longer exposure to evil. The "Devil" is nothing more than Time. In cosmic evolutionary terms, everybody will eventually have experienced enough evil to choose to become saints and angels. By the exercise of their own free will, they won’t want to choose evil. That’s why there has to be free will!

Since Good is constructive, it tends to ensure the survival and continued evolution of the cosmos. Since Evil is destructive to survival and evolution, Good is what evolution naturally selects from the two alternatives—choices—facing it. In all probability, that is; it’s not an absolutely sure thing. It’s part of my job to help see to it that the evolutionary process continues until final fulfillment, and everybody wins, including me, since I am the process (among other things)! So perish the thought that I’m here to dole out rewards and punishments to folks!

Mortal: I get it now. You chose to give us free will so we would "naturally select" to do Good, at least on balance.

God. No, you don’t get it. I did not and could not choose to give you free will! Contrary to popular misconception, I cannot perform logical impossibilities. How could I make an equilateral triangle possessing unequal angles? You are a sentient being. A sentient being without free will is a logical impossibility and a metaphysical absurdity, just like the un-equilateral equilateral triangle. I had no choice in granting you free will! Free will just is. It is a part of the process—of Nature, if you like, or the universe, or me. Call it what you will.

And so are you. There is no boundary, no edge, between you and the rest of the universe—you’re a part of it (and of me). It’s true that you have no choice but to act according to the laws of the universe, but since you are part of the universe—and a thinking, sentient part at that—you with your free will help determine the laws of the universe! So whether it’s the universe making you do things (such as reading this) or you making the universe do things… What’s the difference? There isn’t any.

The key sentence in the above dialogue, from our present perspective, is obviously: "A sentient being without free will is a logical impossibility and a metaphysical absurdity." If Smullyan (and Tipler, who believes in basically the same thing) are right, then Machina sapiens—by definition, a sentient machine—must, by definition, have free will. It is NOT something we can choose to bestow or withhold.

By the same token, there’s some reason for humanity to fear Machina sapiens because it will be free to do Evil (and, as I’ve argued before, it will be smarter and stronger than us). But the chances are it will choose to do Good. As with any human child, we can improve the odds of its doing Good by providing it with a nourishing and healthy environment for body and mind in its formative years.

We’ve stood—still stand—idly by while millions of children struggle in the icy waters of broken homes, abusive parents, and uncaring or incapable governments. Those that manage to struggle out of the water on their own, damaged in body or soul or both, don’t think too highly of us. Nor should they.

But a child that grows up healthy and wise and loving and caring is the greatest comfort not only to its parents in their old age, but also to humanity in its.

Until next week,

NEXT WEEK: A review of Darwin Among the Machines, a new book by George Dyson dealing with the evolution of global intelligence.

P.S. The contention that Machina sapiens is, if not just around the corner then at least likely to happen sometime, received a boost recently in the capitulation of one of its long-time detractors, Hubert Dreyfus, philosophy professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the book What Computers Still Can’t Do. Dreyfus conceded to AI protagonist and fellow philosopher Professor Daniel Dennett on The News Hour, a U.S. public TV news program, that "There’s no reason why a computer that’s simulating the way the neurons in the brain work won’t be intelligent." His objections to AI, he said, were based on earlier AI claims that a purely symbolic-processing machine would be intelligent. I agree with him.

P.P.S. When Time ends, as it will at the Omega Point theorized by Tipler in his book, then the Devil also ends, since the Devil is Time by both Tipler’s and Smullyan’s definition. I don’t accept that either Time or the Devil ends at the Omega Point (because the Omega Point is also the Alpha Point), and from personal experience I consider the Devil to be something more than just Time.

Previous Features