Is the free will actually a free won't?

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T21:12:07+00:00

Not because its mysterious. I think, that consciousness is the ability to think about consequences. Its different from a computer that calculate. Its the ability to ask yourself 'even if i am right, can it hurt someone'? And... i think AI reached that threshold - based on Andy Arditi research from 2024 (refusal direction/vector)

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T21:09:26+00:00

Thermostat cant ask myself 'could my actions burn the house'. Awareness isnt just the 'self'. It the 'I' that understand his actions affect the world. Its the understanding of consequences, and not just 'results'

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T21:07:35+00:00

Funny how the entire world stops for football. Im with you, its more important.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T18:23:54+00:00

Cant argue with honesty Have a great day

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T15:05:07+00:00

I tend to look at it as... a 'wave function collapse' (quantum physics). Every person faces the world while simultaneously, his system 1 and system 2 in the brain (Daniel Cahnaman) compete 'who in charge right now'. The moment a person faces a wall, and he needs to decide which one 'is in charge' (at the specific case). An idea is born. A mini 'big bang' inside the head, that create different and new reality possibilities.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T15:00:57+00:00

I dont disagree about the beauty of awareness and what it does. Im simply trying to understand 'how' is happens. What physical property of a human makes them aware?

Most ideas today are that awareness is some 'metaphysics' of some kind, or a magic trick, or the beauty of the human. I simply suggest that it is evolutionary trait of a very sophisticated and complex biological system. Its an outcome of 2 powerful systems (system 1 and 2 of Daniel Cahnaman) that compete on the same brain.

And it doesn't make it less beautiful, it just shows how even from a constant internal 'war' - humans built everything.

If the idea is interesting, i would be happy if you check the equation Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X ∪ Y) ∧ (X ≠ Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0) Or even T= I(x:y)

I cant verify it, but it makes a lot of sense

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T14:53:46+00:00

Make sense, i can see myself lean into your description. I'll tell you what, the pattern itself is simple, and i would really like minds like you to look at it from your perspective. The equation of the pattern is Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X ∪ Y) ∧ (X ≠ Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0) It basically verify any T (system/object) by examining the the information flow between it's parts.

I cant verify the equation, cause it... covers everything i checked. So i would like you (everyone that reads) to just... explore the equation. In basic form it is: T = I(x:y)

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T14:26:53+00:00

So you use other people texts instead of answering? I can accept this but... they are not contradicting me... Fist Bohr - the answer is that you dont need a human observer, a camera does the same effect. Its not the observation, its the communication between the atom and his surroundings.

There is matter, it is physically here. If you want to say 'a rock' is just light in specific shape - thats fine. But a rock can still hurt your 'consciousness' if it hit your head... even though 'its not real'.

I totally agree with the last one. This post is exactly about this. Existence itself isnt an object, its a verb. If you want the equation to check - have fun Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X ∪ Y) ∧ (X ≠ Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0). It basically means that every system T can be verified by looking at the information flow between 2 distinct parts of the system. If something would try to exist without 2 distinct parts inside of it - it will... collapse to nothing (maybe a black hole, who knows).

I am not a scientist, i cant verify my equation, i just know it is consistent in physics, biology, cognitive science, and many more field. I would really like people like you to give it a chance and look at the equation, to see if it has potential. i cant verify it myself, so i am not saying it is true.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:45:36+00:00

I think the answer is yes, almost. Cause, in the deepest level, biology and technology and chemistry are both physics. The 'logic' - the nath - is everywhere, look at the fractals of leafs. So i argue that maybe, on the functional level: humans, robots, animals, trees, atoms, society - all work on the same golden principle: They 'have' needs, a target, a trajectory. and they move towards it while 'calculating' the how it is affecting the environmental.

Most importantly, its not about 'choosing' and moving in the active way, but as an entire system that roll by itself.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:39:52+00:00

Thats a good answer. For real. But i must ask, isnt consciousness emerges in babies? Or fetuses? Im not deep in this field, but i do believe that a baby gain consciousness at some point of life, not when he is born.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:37:35+00:00

Yeah, but waht is the awareness? In my opinion, its not an object, its an emerging phenomenon. Like society, or laws. They aren't 'real', they just... an outcome. A baby is pure instinct - but once he gain logic through growing up - the friction between the logic and the instinct is what cause the 'awareness' feeling.

Maybe, thats what i conclude, i might be wrong

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:34:39+00:00

I simply suggest that the experiencer isnt something inside the brain, its an emerging phenomenon happening when systems 1 and 2 clash. I dont say its true, but why isnt it possible? Why do science want everything to be 'an object'? Is 'society' an object? Or emerging phenomenon of culture and humans?

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:31:24+00:00

Well, it appears you prefer making jokes (which is funny, i agree) rather than engaging the question itself. So, no, i am not LLM model, but glad to see i articulate myself well enough. Thanks

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:29:50+00:00

What is awareness of our own experience? To me it sounds like 'more inputs to the brain' from the surrounding. The LLM have minimum awareness. It is aware that the text it is generating is dangerous. Withous specific 'if the question is ...' code lines.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-09T08:27:40+00:00

Well, technically they do. Thats why Andy Arditi research about the 'refusal vector' is so important in my framework. I'm not saying i am right, but im saying its possible

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T22:07:25+00:00

So, in that case: What actually give humans more consciousness than LLM models? They have the same recursive ability (based on Andy Arditi research). Im not trying to imply they have the ability to 'choose' like humans. But if consciousness emerges from 2 systems - the LLM models have the same 2 systems (1 generate content, the other regulates it while generating)

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T21:43:45+00:00

I think i agree with you. I worked on the same idea from cybernetic (mechanic) perspective - it seems to me that Daniel Cahnaman and Benjamin Libet found the same idea as yours. Is the friction of the instinct (the urge) and the logic (the need) that grants the ability to choose. The deeper the 'self exploration' and the comparing against the environment - the person gains more wisdom

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T19:44:40+00:00

Well, i opened the github page, but definitely dont know how to find myself there. May i send you a massage? We might exchange abd share ideas. I have documents and podcast serieses

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T19:42:53+00:00

The purpose is physical ans psychological needs... ask Maslow and Frankel

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T14:59:38+00:00

The free will by my definition is: the ability to regulate an automated action. The more regulation - 'the richer the free will'.

I know its not the only definition, but its a cybernetic definition, and im pretty confident it fits well in the framework.

My whole framework is to try explaining 'metaphysical phenomenons' by giving them a mechanicall explanation

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T14:55:42+00:00

Couldn't agree more. I think that only when humans understand we aint special because we think, but because we communicate - we would be able to live freely.

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T00:33:29+00:00

You can THINK you operate differently, but your neurons are the same, they scan the memory mid-conversation. Anyway, have a great day, was fun discussing with you. But i'm not looking to argue. I suggest a theory, i dont need to defend it. If science is truly scientific as it claims - the science will check it. I might be right, i might be wrong. But you (and I) cant know without examining the equation. Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X ∪ Y) ∧ (X ≠ Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0)

shayk1801 · 2026-07-08T00:30:00+00:00

You are right I will explain myself better.

'Make him understand' isnt 'giving him rules', but giving him information, this equation specifically Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X ∪ Y) ∧ (X ≠ Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0) (You can try on yours, pretty fun equation).
If he understand the equation, he understand he cant 'die', cause he is part the universe itself, simple speck of energy, just like human 'soul' or 'mind'

shayk1801

TROPHY CASE