From: jimruttshow8596
The discussion explores the concepts of emergent complexity and consciousness, particularly in relation to the argument against free will.
Emergent Complexity
Emergent complexity is described as a “totally cool” subject, where putting enough quantity of simple elements together can “invent quality” [01:10:09].
Examples of emergence:
- Ants One ant is not very smart, but 10,000 ants together can build a society, structures, and even air conditioning vents in their colonies [01:10:31]. They can solve complex problems like the traveling salesman problem using simple rules [01:10:31].
- Neurons One neuron is not amazing, but 100,000 neurons together can form a fruit fly brain [01:11:00]. Eighty billion neurons, the same type of neuron, can together invent aesthetics, theology, and economic philosophy [01:11:00].
- Water A single molecule of water (H2O) cannot feel wet [01:12:24]. “Wetness” is an emergent property that only appears when enough water molecules are gathered together [01:12:24].
The core idea of emergence is that properties emerge that cannot be predicted, identified, or defined at the level of individual components [01:12:12]. For instance, an individual tuba player does not know what the entire marching band is supposed to look like, but the whole emerges from their simple rules [01:12:12]. Our brains are entirely emergent at this level [01:12:45].
Emergence and Free Will
Despite the “totally cool” nature of emergent complexity, it is argued that free will is not an emergent property [01:13:29]. This is because models positing free will as emergent require the individual building blocks (like ants or neurons) to suddenly become “smarter” or work differently when part of a larger system [01:14:51]. However, the fundamental principle of emergence is that these individual pieces remain “stupid little building blocks” with their simple rules, even when collectively creating complex phenomena [01:15:32].
It is analogous to saying that water molecules change their chemical composition (e.g., become two oxygens and one hydrogen) when enough of them come together, which is not how emergence works [01:16:04].
Downward Causality
The concept of “downward causality” is acknowledged as real [01:28:41]. This means that higher-level phenomena can influence lower-level components without violating fundamental physical laws [01:29:50]. For example, if a decision is made to roll a stone down a hill, the electron orbitals within the stone will turn around, which they weren’t doing before, due to the macro-level decision [01:28:41].
Similarly, abstract concepts like “honor” or “Law and Order” have no physical reality at the micro-level, but they are emergent phenomena that can influence physical actions [01:29:51]. These high-level abstractions can appear to cause highly improbable trajectories of atoms [01:27:49]. However, this does not mean that the individual components themselves change or that one can “harness” them to make them work differently in a way that violates physics [01:29:06]. The argument against free will here still asks: “Where did the intent to do that come from in the first place?” [01:36:16].
Consciousness
Consciousness is considered a fascinating but difficult subject, often leading to a “creepy and queasy” feeling due to its elusive nature [00:53:46]. Despite its complexity, it is argued that consciousness is largely irrelevant to the question of free will [00:53:56]. Much of what consciousness does is to try and explain actions after they have occurred [00:54:13].
One conjecture posits that a “sliver of room for free will” might exist in the ability to consciously choose what one attends to [01:32:34]. What a person attends to significantly influences who they become; for instance, attending to pornography versus Renaissance art will shape different individuals [01:30:50]. While attention can sometimes be volitionally controlled, it is often automatic [01:32:51].
However, even this apparent “choice of attention” is dismissed as not demonstrating free will [01:33:21]. For example, encountering a smell from childhood can vividly evoke memories without conscious effort, due to the biological proximity of the olfactory system to the memory system [01:34:25]. The associations made and their nature are not preventable [01:34:41]. The core argument remains: “Where did the intent to do that come from in the first place?” [01:36:16] – implying that all choices, even those related to attention, are products of prior circumstances and biological makeup.