-
Biological Determinism: Is Free Will Just “Inference”?
Respected scholars,
I work professionally as an Artificial Intelligence Engineer, designing complex multi-agent systems and working with neural networks. My daily work revolves around training systems where the output is strictly governed by the initial architecture and the data it is fed. This background has led me to a deep theological question regarding the physical mechanics of Tadbeer (Free Will) versus biological determinism.
My question is not about the classic ‘Foreknowledge vs. Free Will’ paradox (I understand that God knowing what I will do does not mean He forces me to do it). My question is strictly about the physical reality of the human brain as a closed-loop causal system.
In artificial intelligence, an AI model does not have free will. Its decisions during deployment (Inference) are strictly the mathematical result of two things:
- Its Architecture: The baseline code and parameters it was built with.
- Its Training Data: The massive amount of information it was fed during its formative training phase, which permanently sets its “weights and biases.”
Modern neuroscience suggests human consciousness operates in the exact same deterministic way:
- The Architecture (Genetics/Neurochemistry): We are born with a specific biological baseline that we did not choose.
- The Training Data (Formative Environment): For the first 10 to 15 years of our lives, we have absolutely zero control over our environment. We do not choose our parents, our socio-economic status, the culture we absorb, or our childhood traumas. By the time we reach the age of moral accountability, our neurochemical “weights and biases” (our temperament and baseline reactions) have been completely programmed by data outside our control.
- The Inference Phase (Adulthood): As adults, we feel we are making independent, free choices. However, determinists argue that how we react to any given situation is simply the guaranteed biological output of our genetic architecture processing our past training data. Even if I “choose” to change a bad habit, that choice was forced by a neurochemical threshold of discomfort created by my specific biology and past experiences. The output was guaranteed by the inputs.
If a human is essentially a highly complex biological neural network, then “Free Will” is merely a cognitive illusion. We are just running inference on a script we did not write.
If God is the Ultimate Developer who authored my exact genetic sequence (the architecture) and placed me into a specific childhood environment (the training data), He effectively set the exact physical parameters that dictate my entire causal chain of actions. Holding a human accountable for their actions under this system seems identical to a programmer punishing an AI for generating an output that its own training data forced it to generate
-
5 Replies
-
Biological Determinism: Is Free Will Just “Inference”?
updated 2 weeks ago
3 Members
·
5
Replies
-
God has told us that we have free will. This free will works within the boundaries of determinism. From the given options, we choose. Our experience conflicts with our thoughts while choosing an option. If we did not have free will, we would not have experienced conflict of thoughts.
-
Thank you for the detailed response. I understand the compatibilist argument presented: that determinism simply sets the boundaries, and that our “conflict of thoughts” when choosing an option within those boundaries is empirical evidence of Free Will.However, from the perspective of neuroscience, determinism, and my own professional background in designing artificial intelligence systems, this explanation still relies on a critical logical gap. Philosophers like Alex O’Connor and neurobiologists like Robert Sapolsky have rigorously debunked this exact premise through the following points:1. “Conflict of Thoughts” is Just Biological ComputationThe argument suggests that if we lacked free will, we would not experience internal conflict. Biologically and computationally, this is incorrect. The “friction” or guilt we feel is not the signature of an independent soul; it is simply the biological computation of competing neural networks.When a person feels a base urge (driven by the amygdala) but hesitates out of a sense of morality or long-term consequence (driven by the prefrontal cortex), they are simply experiencing a neurological calculation. In AI engineering, if I program an autonomous agent with competing reward functions (e.g., immediate resource gathering vs. long-term system safety), the system experiences computational “friction” while it calculates the optimal path. The psychological agony we feel is just the biological equivalent of a system taking extra milliseconds to weigh competing neurochemical pathways. The “conflict” is a biological process, not a spiritual one.2. The Mechanism of Choice is Also DeterminedThe compatibilist view states: “From the given options, we choose.” But modern determinists ask: Why did we choose the option that won?If a person overcomes a bad urge and makes the “good” choice, they did so because their specific genetic predisposition toward empathy, combined with their early childhood training, created a neurochemical state where the desire to be good outweighed the urge to do bad. As Arthur Schopenhauer noted, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” We do not choose which of our desires is the strongest. We simply observe the strongest biological desire win the internal calculation, and then falsely take credit for it by calling it “Free Will.”3. The 1% “Ghost in the Machine”Traditional theology concedes that our formative environment, our genetics, our baseline neurochemistry, and the exact options available to us are entirely determined by God’s decree. Yet, it insists that there is a tiny, unobservable gap—a “Ghost in the Machine” or intellect—that sits outside the laws of physics and operates as an independent decider. If human neurobiology completely accounts for 100% of our behavior and decision-making processing, why introduce this unobservable gap just to make moral accountability justifiable?If our “conflict of thoughts” is just neurological weight calculation, and the final “choice” we make is mathematically guaranteed by the architecture and training data we didn’t choose, how does the Ghamidi framework scientifically or logically distinguish human Free Will from a highly advanced, deterministic biological algorithm?
-
That’s because free will doesn’t come from the brain. The mind-body debate is useless in this. They are looking in the wrong place
It comes from the Qalb. That’s another faculty we have. It’s stated clearly in Baqarah 225. Kaa sat qalubukum. Qalb is the source of our free will and anything that stems from there will be held accountable.
Even in the debate they scientist believe that if there is a third thing other than brain and mind then the issue will be solved as well.
-
what’s this third thing? is it heart that beats? pump blood? or this third thing is some part of our brain that works independently then the brain itself not taking any prior inputs, i dont understand !!!🙁
-
It’s the Qalb. It’s a faculty in our sadr(chest). It is used for understanding.
Al Araaf 179
They have Qulub(pl. Of Qalb) they do not understand with.
The physical heart pumps blood. This is something different.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
