Although all functions can be automatically controlled, to some extent, there are still several functions that can be controlled by the human mind. This makes it possible to navigate the world within intent—vital for survival.
This indicates that while non-intent appears to sprawl, intentionality still holds considerable possibility. Speech can be controlled–by pitch and by content, motor functions, and several thoughts can be controlled.
If everything that can be controlled is assumed to be free will, what makes control or intentionality sometimes fail in some situations? There are cases where functions can be [say] taken over automatically when an individual is in some dangerous situation. It is also possible that intentionality may fail in some health situations. However, without these, and in a case, for example, like pleasure, why does free will seem to fail to prevent going on at it, even when it might result in consequence
There are several situations where people have been unable to gain control against pleasure. What is the reason for it?
There is a new report from the The Lancet, Time for a public health response to gambling, estimating that “46·2% of adults and 17·9% of adolescents had engaged in gambling in the past year, globally. While only a small proportion of individuals will be classified as engaging in problematic gambling (1·4%), considering the effect of gambling across the entire spectrum of consumption is crucial. An estimated 5·5% of women and 11·9% of men experience any risk gambling. The epidemiological landscape is changing, with a substantial number of women and young people taking part. For the gambling industry, this is not an epidemiological landscape, this is a rapidly expanding and highly profitable market. Use of innovative digital marketing to target consumers through social media and user data, along with sports and media sponsorship are supporting gambling expansion. The boundaries between digital gaming and gambling are also becoming blurred. With the gambling industry leveraging digital transformation, the need to prevent and mitigate gambling-related harms is even more prescient.”
How Does Free Will Work in The Human Mind?
The human mind is theorized to be the collection of all the electrical and chemical signals with their interactions and features, in sets, in clusters of neurons in the central and peripheral nervous systems.
Interactions define how functions are set, while features grade or measure the extents or the limits of those functions. Interactions are the strikes [of sets] of electrical signals on chemical signals, while features are variations [in sets] of electrical signals as well as in chemical signals, qualifying the reach of those interactions.
One feature is prioritization—defining attention—which means the set with the most volume of chemical signals among all, in any instance. Another feature is a space of constant diameter in some sets of chemical signals. It is theorized that sets of signals with these spaces make it possible to have free will.
This means that free will, control, or intent are operated from those spaces, for sets of signals that have them. The sets of signals that do not have them do not make free will possible. Whenever there is an automatic takeover of functions, say during danger, it could be a result of prioritization or full volume, then another feature called the intensity of electrical signals, as well as arrays, where the set is able to distribute to other sets of signals that can be put on alert, towards safety. There is also a feature called the principal spot, which may determine domination if the set of signals moves there. [This may not be a substantial physical change, but the extension of volume, across more areas of the set, to take a larger precedence in the array.]
Why Does Pleasure Make Free Will Fail?
Usually, in a dangerous situation, a reason that automatic control may induce flight is because the volume of prioritization covers some perimeter, affecting the diameter, and then the function proceeds in arrays—like it cannot be controlled. Simply, volume is maxed, the space of constant diameter is affected, but the function proceeds like it is not there.
During an illness, a reason that the space of constant diameter may not work is because prioritization is elsewhere, in some internal sensory input, with lots of domination [in the principal spot], that the minimum it would have taken for some possibility for other sets to have their space of constant diameter access is limited.
For pleasure, it is sometimes close to the same with a dangerous situation, where prioritization is full, and the set moves into the principal spot, such that the space of constant diameter may be closed out, and then there is no possibility to step back from that point.
This is different from the distributions of electrical signals avoiding sets of signals that hold the configuration for pleasure and so forth.
AI Alignment and Safety
To align AI with human values, it would have to at least have some form of consequences, relaying to check possible effects on people or society, to avoid causing harm or danger. This is similar to AI safety, where even if AI has no intent, it can be somewhat safe against some risks, based on how the human mind works.
This is an advertisement
