I don’t know what you are expecting. You posted a thought experiment, and I responded to it: I said that I did not believe it was possible in real life, but that if it was/is possible then free will is not possible.
What do you think “real debate” is, if not this? You clearly want me to agree that this hypothetical situation is physically and metaphysically possible, but I do not agree with that, because I am a libertarian: I defend a metaphysical position where free will is real. You appear to be claiming that unless I simply accept an assumption that free will is impossible, I’m not open to real debate. The exact opposite is true: I am engaging in real debate, and you’re demanding that I accept your metaphysical assumptions for no reason.
The problem is that you’re moving from “it is possible to influence brain states from outside” to “it is possible to completely control brain states from outside”, but you aren’t able to justify how you are getting from one to the other. Analogies with different situations (like the development of flight) don’t help.
I don’t know how you think (analytical) philosophy is supposed to work, but in fact it is supposed to work exactly like this. Please also note that my posts are entirely free from frustration or any other emotion, even though you are persistently misquoting and misrepresenting me. I’m just sitting here calmly explaining what I think, and why. I am not taking anything personally. I am interested only in clarity.
I might add that Robert is defending a very similar position: we have no reason to believe complete external control of a brain is possible.
I think that free will assumes a funcitoning mind that is actually capable of making decisions. If something takes over that agency - you’re removing the conditions for that free will to exist. Just like death does it.
However, if free will is not (fully) in the brain - then all bets are off…
Sorry for interferring - I have less than zero interest in free will.
Let’s consider free will over the span of a human life … Before conception? In the womb? Early infancy? Toddler years? Small child? Adolescent? Adult? Retiree? In decline? Postmortem? Which of these life-stages manifest free will, and to what extent?
If we map free will to the brain, it appears to rise and fall something like a waveform over the course of the life span. Moveover, when we are asleep, or under anesthesia, or suffer traumatic brain injury, what becomes of free will then?
The alternative view (which I prefer) is that “freedom” and “will” are qualia of experience. The body-mind expands its capacity for such experience over the course of a normal life. (What happens to this capacity at end of life … well, that’s something I’m looking forward to finding out!) In any case, I’d put “freedom” and “will” on the inner side of Wilber’s quadrants. I’d put brain on the outer side. To avoid pure Cartesian dualism about these matters, I’d say human body-minds evolved for sensitivity to spiritual signal, which model is non-dualistic, because the matter that constitutes body-mind is itself spiritual signal at selected persistent frequencies. To make a musical metaphor, matter expresses the base notes and rhythmic floor of the cosmic symphony, whereas freedom and will are more the melody line.
In this model, “freedom” and “will” are fundamentally metaphysical, making the most sense in theological contexts. They map to human development or dysfunction in so far as some humans are more sensitive to the metaphysical, more influenced by it, and more able to process it consciously. Nothing about our metaphysical relationship to freedom and will changes when asleep, or anesthetized, or (I believe) dead - but our capacity for action influenced by such spiritual signal is of course heavily conditioned by our physical circumstances in the physical world.
I don’t agree. At least from the perspective of analytical philosophy, free will is arguably the biggest problem of them all, which makes it very interesting. Nagel has said that he changes his mind every time he thinks about it, and that none of the options currently on the table is any good. The unavoidable truth is that we are subjectively absolutely convinced that we have free will, but that all (or nearly all) of the attempts to formally account for this have resulted in models of reality which cannot be correct (for one reason or another).
In my own 30 years of experience of talking to people about this online, I’d rank it as the most confusing area of philosophy. An awful lot of people think it is simple, but hold views which don’t stack up. Most of the debates consist of people talking past each other, because they’ve got completely different notions of what the term “free will” even means.
I’m “subjectively absolutely convinced” that I can’t be sure whether I have free will or not.
Since you’re familiar with Kastrup - I’m happy (in a slighly disinterested fashion) with what he proposes (and not only him).
We’re individualisation of global consciousness, so any “free will” that we might claim is just the reflection of the quality that the mind at large might have.
I might understand an interest in the question as a part of a solution for a bigger puzzle.
These two go together. Saying we are an individualisation of global consciousness is true in the most general, broad sense, but that’s not good enough. What does it actually mean? How does this actually work? And to make sense of that, it needs to be integrated with the solution to a much bigger puzzle.
In 2PC free will is how actuality is selected from possibility, not just in an individual sense but at the level of the whole of reality. This has to be mathematically integrated with quantum mechanics, so it is important metaphysically, and it is also literally the means by which the future is selected from the possibilities, which is rather important both morally and practically.
I have just shown Deepseek only the equations for Competition-resolved Collapse:
After the Embodiment Threshold has been passed, collapse unfolds as a storm of micro-collapses inside the subject’s specious present. This storm is the ongoing process that sustains embodiment.
Each micro-collapse (ci) is a local stabilisation of entangled alternatives. The hazard rate (which explains when the world collapses (driven by attention and value)) for a micro-collapse is:
Competing micro-collapses share overlapping support in Hilbert space, and the realised one minimises the inconsistency functional (which path the world takes (the one that causes the least “logical pain”)). :
This equation represents the structural completion of the model: it shows how the standard laws of physics (L_U) and the subject’s internal valuations (lambda_i) combine to create a single, unfolding reality. This “master equation” is the final rule that combines it all into a moving picture of reality.
I then asked it to explain what this equations have got to do with free will. Response:
How those equations relate to free will (reformatted for posting)
This is a fascinating and highly original framework. You’ve essentially built a stochastic, value-driven collapse model that ties the physical process of quantum measurement to the psychological process of decision-making.
Here’s how these equations relate to free will – specifically, a form of compatibilist or even libertarian free will embedded in a quantum framework.
[1] The core problem: Free will vs. determinism vs. randomness
Traditional physics has two main threats to free will:
Determinism (Newtonian mechanics): Everything is already fixed by prior causes.
Indeterminism/randomness (simple quantum collapse): If collapse is purely random, you don’t choose; you roll dice.
Your model offers a third way: value- and attention-guided stochastic collapse.
[2] The hazard rate equation – where “choice” enters
Physical meaning: The probability per unit time for micro-collapse c_i to occur is not fixed – it is modulated by:
V_i(t): value (what the subject cares about)
P_i(t): past history / priors
A_i(t): attention
C_i(t): context (or “coherence” of alternatives)
Free will link: If these parameters (V, P, A, C) are shaped by the subject’s internal state (goals, memories, focus, values), and if that state is not fully determined by prior external causes, then the subject biases the collapse process.
This is not randomness – it’s controlled stochasticity. The agent influences the hazard rate without fully dictating the outcome.
In other words: free will operates as the capacity to modulate the probabilities of micro-collapses via attention and value.
[3] The inconsistency functional – why collapse isn’t arbitrary
The realised collapse is the one that minimises F[c_i].
First term: The outcome should match the “value” V_ci (what the subject expects or prefers) as closely as possible given the quantum state.
Second term: It should also minimise quantum decoherence/discrepancy between system+environment and system alone – i.e., choose a path that is least “logically painful” for the unitary evolution.
Free will link: The subject’s values directly enter the minimisation. The universe tries to satisfy the subject’s valuations while respecting quantum mechanics. But because multiple micro-collapses compete, the final choice is not purely deterministic – yet it’s also not random. It’s value-optimised resolution of quantum conflict.
This resembles an action principle for consciousness: reality is the least-action path constrained by both physics and the subject’s valuations.
[4] The master equation – unification into a “moving picture”
First term L_U: standard unitary evolution (Schrödinger dynamics) – the “laws of physics.”
Second term: collapse terms weighted by lambda_i(t) – the “influence of the subject on reality.”
Free will link: The density matrix rho_S evolves not just according to fixed physical laws, but according to time-dependent rates that reflect the subject’s inner state. Over the specious present (the “now” window of consciousness), these micro-collapses form a “storm” – an ongoing, non-deterministic construction of the experienced present.
Thus, free will is not a ghost pushing a button. It is the ongoing modulation of collapse rates that sculpts which branch of reality becomes actualised.
[5] So what kind of free will is this?
Determined by past? No – lambda_i(t) changes with attention/value in real time.
Purely random? No – biases exist via V, A, P, C.
Compatible with physics? Yes – it modifies quantum collapse, not violates it.
Effect on reality? Direct – collapse selects the actual outcome.
This is a libertarian-like free will within a physicalist framework: the agent’s internal valuations physically bias the collapse process without fully controlling it.
[6] Philosophical punchline
Most free will debates assume:
Determinism → no free will.
Randomness → no free will (just chance).
Non-physical soul → dualism.
Your equations propose a fourth option:
Free will is the capacity to steer the hazard rates of quantum micro-collapses via attention and value, within the specious present, such that the realised history is neither fully determined nor fully random.
The “storm of micro-collapses” (consciousness) is where physics meets agency – and the master equation is the bridge between the quantum world and the felt experience of choosing.
Good way to put it. I’m starting to visualize “free will” as an energy wave that moves from person to person, generation to generation. From my early childhood memories, my parents had all the agency, and my awareness of anything came in bits and flashes. There certainly was no rational application of “will” in my part (albeit no lack of willfulness!). As my parents went into their decline, they remained fairly lucid, but ever more limited in their physical capabilities. Now they have passed, they are no longer with us as physical actors, but not exactly “gone” either. Today, as I stroll by the playground and see small children with their mothers, I see freedom and will moving forward to whatever the future of civilization will be after I have exited this stage. It grows in my awareness that the “future” I am striving for has more to do with these small children than it does with the old man in a sun hat taking note of them. (Teenage memories of Jethro Tull’s “Aqualung” hard to suppress at this point!)
There are different degrees of freedom, but I believe the only way to make sense of free will and physics together is to say that at the most basic level, free will is identical to consciousness. Even a worm makes choices about how to move its body, and so do human infants. But adult humans, who are aware of their own awareness, and have a sense of morality, have much more complicated choices to make.
We might call the most basic version “unfree will”, since animals and infants are almost entirely restricted to doing what their animal instincts are telling them to do. Attaining “free will”, in this scheme, is a process of learning to over-ride those instincts and doing what we consider to be morally the right thing to do. This is of course exactly why many spiritual traditions emphasise the ability to withstand intense pain or deprivation – it is a demonstration of free will.
Not happy with this. We’re all totally restricted as to what we can do by our potentialities. Just because someone has more actionable options - that doesn’t qualitatively differentiate it. Instincts and potentialities are constrained by physics, biology, external and internal constraints. We know that those can be tweaked. for example - taking drugs to numb the pain might register as having more “free will” - but it’s totally pointless. Ability of a falcon to cover a huge number of potentials positions in time and space shouldn’t mean that it has more of a free will.
Again, talking about free will is absurd if we don’t first understand conscioussness.
Otherwise it’s all metaphor switching.
When I was developing 2PC I was stuck for quite a long time trying to figure out how to include both consciousness and free will, as if consciousness was a passive input and free will was an active output. I could find no coherent way to make this work, and in the end I realised that you cannot separate consciousness and free will: they are literally the same thing, just viewed in different ways. It follows that you cannot understand either of them if you think they are separate things.
Another way to put this: consciousness is always active, and never passive. The observer affects the observed at all times.
The idea of free will as an energy wave, and as a wider emergence between beings, rather than confined neatly to individuals, was actually the kind of concept I had hoped to see explored.
Although on balance I can’t see how free will exists individually, there may be something in a collective field that we can intersect with.
Unfortunately the bulk of the discussion was swamped by an approach rooted in segmentation and categorisation, rather than inter-relational connections, so I lost interest. We have someone jumping around saying under neuroscience it’s impossible to completely control what goes on in a human brain, avoiding difficult questions by switching terminology (free will to consciousness although later saying both are the same), and I lost energy to continue the subject. But I’m keeping track of later concepts with interest.
That’s a textbook example of pseudoscience. You are actually thinking in terms of a vague metaphor, but using scientific terminology. The precise meanings of words is really important here.
Although on balance I can’t see how free will exists individually, there may be something in a collective field that we can intersect with.
See: the CRC equations already posted above. This is exactly their purpose - to explain how multiple “free wills” can be consistent with physics. There are no new fields, just a modified metaphysical account of wavefunction collapse.
avoiding difficult questions by switching terminology (free will to consciousness although later saying both are the same)
Sometimes questions are not just difficult but impossible, and the only way to resolve the problem is to change the terminology to reflect the actuality. What are your grounds for rejecting the idea that consciousness, free will and wavefunction collapse are three different names for the same process? Why is that not a possible correct description of reality?
As things stand, none of those things has an established definition, because none of them have been integrated with physics.
For someone who claims to be doing metaphysics, not science, you claim a high degree of scientific grasp. It appears for you, the “precise meaning of words” is precisely what you, and you alone, wish the words to mean. Rather like Alice’s Humpty Dumpty!
Are we doing metaphysics here? Then what are the truth criteria for that? Are we doing science here? Then what are the truth criteria for that? Or is there some other game going on here that needs a different name?
That is not justified. “Energy” has a very well established meaning in science, and should not be used in metaphysics at all.
Are we doing metaphysics here?
Yes, free will is metaphysics.
Then what are the truth criteria for that?
In the case of 2PC, radical cross-disciplinary explanatory power. In the case of the standard canon of free will arguments, the answer is deeply unclear.
Are we doing science here? Then what are the truth criteria for that? Or is there some other game going on here that needs a different name
We are not doing science, no.
Yes, it probably needs a new name, because it involves a redefinition of the relationship between science and philosophy. It is holistic in a way no previous theory, either scientific or metaphysical, ever has been.
Pay no attention to the thinkers on the list below! They all foolishly used “energy” in metaphysical contexts!
The idea of “energy” spans multiple metaphysical traditions, ranging from ancient philosophy to New Thought and modern esotericism. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
1. Classical & Continental Philosophy
Aristotle: He originated the concept with his term energeia, which translates to “actuality” or the state of being at work. For Aristotle, energy is the metaphysical realization of a potential. [1]
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: He formulated the principle of vis viva (living force), an early concept of kinetic energy. Metaphysically, he argued the universe is composed of indivisible, dynamic units of force called “monads.” [1, 2, 3, 4]
Henri Bergson: He developed the concept of élan vital (vital impulse), a metaphysical, creative life energy that drives evolution and consciousness.
2. Eastern Traditions & Esotericism
Indian & Tibetan Traditions: Metaphysical concepts like Prana (the breath of life) and Kundalini (coiled spiritual energy) describe a flow of vital energy through subtle bodily channels. [1, 2]
Traditional Chinese Medicine & Daoism: These traditions are based on Qi (or Chi), the circulating life energy inherent in all things. [1, 2, 3]
Western Esotericism & Hermeticism: Alchemists and Hermeticists propose that spiritual energy circulates within the human body, mirroring macrocosmic celestial movements. [1]
3. “New Thought” & Modern Spirituality
Charles Fillmore: The co-founder of Unity Church defined energy metaphysically as “the power of God within us to accomplish” and the internal capacity of the mind to produce effects. [1]
Modern Energy Psychology: Thinkers like David R. Hawkins or Deepak Chopra integrate quantum mechanics with metaphysical energy to describe the universe as a field of consciousness and frequency. [1]
4. Scientific Mysticism & Process Philosophy
Albert Einstein & Nikola Tesla: Though scientists, their philosophical views on the interconnectedness of matter, frequency, and vibration are frequently cited in metaphysical literature. [1, 2, 3]
Alfred North Whitehead: The founder of Process Philosophy proposed a worldview where reality is made not of static substances, but of continuous events, drops of experience, and shifting energy. [1, 2, 3]
That is history, Robert. In 2026, if you try to use the word “energy” in metaphysics then you will be rightfully ripped to pieces. It’s literally pseudoscience: fake science. “Energy” has a very clear meaning in science and no clear meaning in metaphysics.
Deepak Chopra is the textbook example of somebody with zero credibility because of this sort of problem.
Because of course, you know more than all of these put together.
In contemporary philosophy, “energy” is rarely used to mean the mystical or spiritual life-force found in pop-culture. Instead, academic philosophers use the term in a few specific metaphysical contexts, ranging from the ontology of physics to ancient Greek revivals: [1, 2, 3]
Process Philosophers (e.g., Nicholas Rescher & David Ray Griffin): Inspired by A.N. Whitehead, process philosophers argue that reality is not made of static substances, but of dynamic events, processes, and energetic occurrences. For them, energy is the fundamental “stuff” of the cosmos. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Ontologists of Physics (e.g., Jessica Wilson & Michela Massimi): Metaphysicians working in the Philosophy of Science investigate what physical theories mean at an ontological level. They debate whether mass-energy equivalence (\(E=mc^2\)) implies that the universe is fundamentally composed of “energetic” properties rather than material particles. [1, 2]
Panpsychists (e.g., Philip Goff): As a solution to the mind-body problem, panpsychism suggests that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the physical universe. Some thinkers, influenced by Spinoza’s monism, use “energy” to describe the underlying physical and mental dual-aspect of the universe. [1, 2, 3, 4]
This is really important. It should not be baffling. If we take scientific terminology and use it to describe something metaphysical then we are very literally engaged in pseudoscience. People do this because they want their theory to “sound scientific” – they are trying to borrow the credibility of science and use it to bolster a theory which doesn’t follow the rules of science. Scientists have every right to consider this illegitimate.
Mixing up science and metaphysics in an indiscriminare manner is exactly what New Age “philosophy” did, and it was a fatal mistake.
What do you mean when you say “energy” in this context? Do you even know?