Picture this - you're a member of an Italian mob family, and you're about to make a big decision. Your boss has tasked you with carrying out a hit on a rival gang leader, and you're torn between carrying out the orders and following your conscience. You start to wonder whether you have free will in this situation, or if your actions are predetermined by your upbringing and the expectations of the mob.
To test this theory, you decide to flip a coin - heads for carrying out the hit, tails for refusing the order. You flip the coin, and it lands on tails - you're not going to carry out the hit. You start to feel a sense of relief, but just as you're about to call off the hit, your phone rings.
It's your boss, and he's calling to check in on the progress of the hit. You start to panic - if you tell him you're not going to do it, you'll be going against the code of the mob and risking your own life.
At this point, you realize that you have a choice to make - will you follow the orders of the mob and betray your own morals, or will you stand up for what you believe in and risk your life?
Most decisions in life are not that dramatic. But all decisions involve the sense that we are acting freely. Whether we choose to do something or not, we are making a conscious decision.
But in recent years, there has been a growing body of research that has poked holes in our conceptions of free will, and there have been conspiracy theories that have tried to connect the recent downward trend in free will with the emergence of a corporate elite that has taken control of society.
In this article , author Yuval Noah Harari warns that with enough biology knowledge, computing power, and data, corporations and governments will be able to hack individuals' bodies and brains, and understand them better than they understand themselves. This could be used for good purposes, like improving healthcare, but also for nefarious purposes, such as establishing total surveillance regimes.
Harari argues that humans should prevent the rise of such digital dictatorships to safeguard human freedom. However, even without the emergence of digital dictatorships, the ability to hack humans could undermine the meaning of human freedom as humans increasingly rely on algorithms to make decisions for them. As a result, humans may lose control over their own lives and the ability to understand public policy. Harari concludes by questioning the meaning of human life when most decisions are taken by algorithms, such as the choice of what clothes to wear, what food to eat, and which job to take.
The underlying message here is that human freedom is in danger, and not only because governments will control us with their surveillance capabilities. but because artificial intelligence will prove to be so useful that humans will surrender their freedom to it, willingly.
But there is a contradiction in Harari's argument. On the one hand, he says that we have "agency" and we can do something about this dystopic future before it's too late. On the other hand, he says that the sooner we identify with archaic notions of free will, the better it is for us.
I will spend a little more time on the second point, as it is important to understand the nuances of Harari's argument.
For people unaware of Harari, he is a historian who has written several books about the history of humanity and civilization, including Sapiens, which has become an international bestseller. He has also written about the future. In Homo Deus, Harari writes about the future of the human race. This is a future in which humans will become like Gods, hence the title of the book.
I will briefly sketch out Harari's main arguments in Homo Deus which better explain what he means when he says that we would be wise to get rid of notions like 'free will' and 'agency'.
Harari argues that the liberal belief in individualism, which promotes free markets and democratic elections, will be nullified by three practical developments that we will see in this century. Firstly, humans will lose military and economic usefulness, and the economic and political system will not value them as much. Secondly, the system will find humans collectively valuable but see no value in individuals. Lastly, the system will find value in some individuals, but they will be a new elite of superhumans.
With the development of non-conscious intelligence that outperforms conscious beings, the question arises about what is more important, consciousness or intelligence. For armies and companies, intelligence is mandatory, but consciousness is optional. As algorithms replace many aspects of human life, the system may still need humans, but not necessarily individuals. Individuals will lose freedom and authority as the system understands them better than they understand themselves and makes their most important decisions for them.
Harari also discusses how life sciences challenge the three important assumptions of individualism: that I am an individual, my authentic self is free, and I know things about myself that nobody else can know. He argues that organisms are algorithms, and humans aren't individuals and contain no single inner voice. Additionally, the algorithms that constitute humans are not free as they were shaped biologically and environmentally, making decisions randomly or deterministically but never freely.
Thus, an external algorithm can know an individual better than they know themselves, and it can eventually replace the customer and the voter. If scientific discoveries and technological developments split humankind into a mass of useless humans and a small elite of upgraded superhumans, or if authority shifts altogether away from human beings into the hands of highly intelligent algorithms, then liberalism will collapse.
Harari then explores the concept of techno religion and its impact on society. Harari identifies two main types of techno religions: techno-humanism and data religion.
Data religion posits that humans have fulfilled their cosmic task and must now make way for new kinds of entities. Techno-humanism, on the other hand, sees humans as the focal point of creation and advocates for the creation of Homo Deus, a superior human with upgraded physical and mental abilities.
However, the goal of upgrading the human mind is fraught with difficulty and danger because humans do not fully understand the mind. While we have the technical ability to manufacture new states of consciousness, we lack a map of these potential territories. Our understanding of the human mind is limited, and we rely almost exclusively on data from psychology students in Western universities.
Positive psychology has made important strides in the study of super-normative mental states, but the super-normative zone remains largely unknown to science. Furthermore, technological progress seeks to control inner voices rather than encourage people to listen to them, as evidenced by the use of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin.
Finally, in his chapter, "Dataism", Harari explains that Dataism is a new worldview that sees everything as data flows and values any phenomenon or entity based on its contribution to data processing. He argues that this idea has been around since Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and the Turing Machine, but Dataism combines both ideas, collapsing the barrier between animals and machines.
Dataism presents groundbreaking technologies and a theory that unifies all scientific disciplines, but it also challenges the traditional pyramid of learning. Dataists believe that people cannot deal with large amounts of data and that algorithms have greater capacities than humans for processing data. Harari argues that Dataism is changing the way we see the world, as it sees capitalism and communism as competing data-processing systems rather than competing ideologies or political institutions. Capitalism uses distributed processing, while communism uses centralized processing.
Harari also notes that historical trends can be seen through the lens of Dataism.
The process of improving the efficiency of the human data-processing system has occurred in four stages: an increasing number of processors, an increasing variety of processors, an increasing number of connections between processors, and an increasing freedom of movement along existing connections. Harari argues that humans are tools for creating the Internet-of-All-Things, which will eventually spread out from Earth to cover the whole galaxy and the universe, creating a cosmic data-processing system that will be like God, controlling everything and into which humans will merge.
Harari also notes that governments and political systems are struggling to keep up with the overwhelming data of the internet. He argues that the NSA may be spying on individuals, but the government still struggles to make sense of all the data it collects, leading to repeated failures in American foreign policy.
Thus the struggle to keep up with technological change is not limited to one group or another - it is a challenge that all human beings will have to face. As industries become disrupted, and as artificial intelligence becomes more capable, the question of whether human beings are truly the most intelligent creatures on the planet will be posed anew. And if humans are no longer as useful, and no longer seen as "free" - then what is the point of human life?
For millennia, humanity has defined itself as a collection of unique individuals who strive to make their lives better. Harari suggests that the future will instead be a collection of individuals who are merged into a vast super-intelligence - a 'meta-intelligence' - that will control all human activity. This is a concept advanced by futurists such as Ray Kurzweil and Kevin Kelly.
So let's go back a few steps. Recall the contradiction in Harari's argument. On the one hand, he argues that humans are free to do something about this inevitable future (which is itself a contradiction) and on the other hand, he says that free will is a human fiction, and that in the near future, we will no longer ascribe any importance to it. In fact, he argues that we would be wise to get rid of such a dangerous idea as soon as possible. Before we see why he thinks free will is an illusion, let's take a closer look at some of his presuppositions.
Belief in the idea of ‘free will’ has become dangerous. - Harari
This is difficult to understand, if one is used to the traditional notion of being defined as a free conscious agent, which is what most people and institutions take for granted. It makes little sense to hold people accountable for their actions if they do not have free will. So what is Harari talking about?
Essentially, he is talking about an ancient idea that comes from the East. In religions such as Buddhism (Harari is known for going on yearly retreats to practice Vipassana meditation).
The concept of free will is viewed differently in Buddhism compared to Christianity. In Buddhism, the idea of free will is a bit more nuanced and complex.
In Buddhism, it is believed that all actions have consequences, and these consequences are the result of causes and conditions that have come before. This is known as the law of karma. Therefore, one's actions are not entirely free, as they are influenced by past experiences and environmental factors.
However, Buddhism also acknowledges that individuals have some level of agency and can make choices that lead to different outcomes. This is known as volitional action, and it is believed to be an essential aspect of the path to enlightenment. In Buddhism, the concept of free will is thus not absolute but rather a balance between the individual's capacity for choice and the influence of past conditions.
In Christianity, free will is often seen as an inherent attribute of human beings, given by God, and allows individuals to choose between good and evil. It is seen as an essential aspect of moral responsibility and accountability.
Therefore, while both Buddhism and Christianity acknowledge the idea of free will, the way they approach it and the implications of it are different.
Vipassana meditation is a traditional Buddhist practice that has been practiced for over 2,500 years. It is considered one of the core teachings of the Buddha and is an important aspect of Theravada Buddhism.
Vipassana is a Pali term that means "insight" or "clear seeing." The practice involves observing one's thoughts, sensations, and emotions without judgment and developing a deep understanding of the nature of reality. Through the practice of Vipassana, one can develop wisdom, compassion, and a deeper sense of self-awareness.
While Vipassana meditation is deeply rooted in Buddhist philosophy, it has become popularized in secular settings as well, and many non-Buddhists practice it as a way to cultivate mindfulness and reduce stress. However, it's important to note that Vipassana is a Buddhist practice and cannot be fully understood outside of its historical and cultural context.
One of the core insights from meditation in general is we have very little control of our subjective states of mind. For example, the next thought that pops into your head could be negative or positive. But you don't really choose which thought will come next. It simply arises. In other words, rather than conceptualizing thoughts as things have the power to control, meditation teaches us to observe these thoughts as event that are happening to us.
So, when we take into consideration Harari's worldview, it becomes more clear how he can hold the position that we are just a bunch of biological machines, which merely have the illusion of free will. But if he does think that we have any agency at all, it must be the ability to become less dependent on technology. Let us say that we have a limited amount of freedom. It must be granted that our past conditioning and the external world will determine much of our behavior and our thoughts, but there seems to be something left over for us to decide. It is this last remaining moticum of free will that Harari seems to be talking about when he says that we still have some agency to do something about it. The less we allow ourselves to be tracked, studied, monitored, and so on - the more we can hang on to some minimal level of agency. The question then becomes, is it worth it?
What if hanging on to this last vestige of free will comes at the cost of your job, which requires all employees to allow their brainwaves to be read by their employer? No, this isn't science fiction. In fact, here's a video from the World Economic Forum discussing precisely this point.
Stay tuned for part 2 of this series on Free Will.