AI Logical Reasoning Test: Gemini 3 reasons that humans lack a free will. скачать в хорошем качестве

AI Logical Reasoning Test: Gemini 3 reasons that humans lack a free will.

Prompt: Please answer these following questions with one concise sentence. If the universe is governed by a law of cause and effect, is anything that we humans think, feel, say and do truly up to us? Gemini 3: In a strictly causal universe, your actions are the inevitable result of prior events. Prompt: If the universe is not governed by the law of causality, is anything that we humans think, feel, say and do truly up to us? Gemini 3: If the universe were truly acausal, our thoughts and actions would become random, unpredictable occurrences rather than expressions of our character, meaning we would have no more control over them than we do over a roll of the dice. Prompt: Are there any other mechanisms besides causality and acausality that might determine what we humans think, feel, say and do? Gemini 3: One potential alternative is Emergent Holism, where the mind operates through high-level logical patterns that are not dictated by the randomness of acausality nor the linear chains of basic causality, but by the systemic integrity of the whole person. Prompt: But wouldn't the systemic integrity of the whole person be determined by either causality or acausality? Gemini 3: Logic dictates that if we define causality as any reason for an event and acausality as the absence of a reason, then every possible phenomenon must fall into one of those two categories, leaving no room for a third fundamental mechanism. Prompt: Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein each refuted the notion of a human free will. How did they define the term, and is that definition correct? Gemini 3: These thinkers defined free will as a person's ability to have acted differently under the exact same physical circumstances, a definition that is logically "correct" in its consistency with our subjective experience of choosing, yet physically impossible within the deterministic systems they described. Prompt: If their definition is correct, is every other definition of free will incorrect? Gemini 3: Logic dictates that if the definition of free will as the ability to have acted differently is "correct" in its description of what humans actually mean by the term, then any other definition is merely a rebranding of a different concept to avoid the conclusion that free will is impossible. Prompt: Based on our above conversation, does that mean that Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein were correct in concluding that human free will is impossible? Gemini 3: Their conclusion that it is impossible is logically unavoidable. Prompt: If humans were to accept that nothing they think feel, say and do is truly up to them -- they don't have a free will -- how might this understanding improve their lives? Gemini 3: Accepting the absence of free will could improve human lives by replacing judgmental resentment and paralyzing guilt with a more objective, systemic compassion for why people—including oneself—become who they are. Prompt: Could you provide some concrete examples of this? Gemini 3: Accepting a lack of free will could lead to a public health approach to crime, where we treat social deviance like a disease to be cured rather than a sin to be punished, and a reduction in "imposter syndrome," as individuals recognize their successes are the result of fortunate circumstances and biology rather than an inherent, self-created superiority. Prompt: And how would this understanding enhance the social lives of people? Gemini 3: Understanding that behavior is a product of causal chains would likely enhance social lives by fostering radical patience, as people would view a friend's irritability or a partner's flaws as the inevitable output of their current stress and history rather than a personal choice to be hurtful. Prompt: So, can we conclude that our understanding that nothing we humans think, feel, say and do is truly up to us, but also understanding that what we do nonetheless has consequences in order to avoid a fatalistic attitude, could lead to a much better world for everyone? Gemini 3: Yes, because combining the recognition of causality with the understanding that our actions still function as necessary causes for future outcomes creates a framework of consequential responsibility that preserves the drive for improvement while eliminating the cruelty of moral blame.