"First, the word will refers to a state of mind or a capacity of mind. It is in some way associated with conscious experience. The philosophical concept came into existence because we have a direct sense that “free choice” is a human capacity. Second, for will to have any meaning, it must be possible for the mind to affect events – for the mind to control the body. The concept of will is not compatible with the classical conception of physical processes. Classical physics would demand that nature grind out blindly and automatically the consequences of any initial action. Any mind attached to such an automaton would be only a passive observer. Such a mind would not be able to control any aspect of its body’s behavior. It would be a captive bird in the brain cage, and there would be nothing to call “will.” Thus the concept of will demands that before the mind comes into play, before the mind acts on matter, the physical laws must allow – must specify – a range of potentialities as to what the body could do, and the process that selects from that range of possibilities which possibility will happen must be clearly outside of the prescriptions of the physical laws. That is to say, the physical laws must be underconstrained.
"Finally, the concept of will requires that when the mind does interact with the brain, the physical brain and body will then do one of those things that physics permits so that the thing the mind willed becomes the state of the brain and the action of the body."
* * * * * *
Just wanted to point out that there are several concepts in the above passage that are not material things, such as mind, consciousness, will, philosophical concepts, even physical laws. Ordinarily, science does not want to deal with such things (making an exception, of course, for physical laws). However, the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics, the problem of the QM observer, "who" makes a selection (i.e., exercises choice or will) from a range of potentialities in a state vector -- these are issues the Copenhagen School of QM prefers to leave vague and undefined -- arguably demands that science somehow learn to deal with the problem of mind or consciousness. The "spillover" of quantum theoretical insights into biology promises to be quite interesting, once physicists get "serious" about the problems of consciousness -- assuming, of course, they ever do.
I think it's fair to say that this is physicist Evan Harris Walker’s opinion in the matter, at least. Unlike some, he is entirely unwilling to leave the status of the observer to classification as a “measurement event” or even “kumquat,” as some people are wont to do….
Questions for my old friends PH and Lev: Do the higher primates have this sort of “ineffable,” intangible, yet completely real thing, such that we can say they have mind, consciousness, will? To what extent are the higher primates capable of revising and reshaping their world, at will? If they don’t have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future? If so, what would the precise mechanism need to be to cause this to happen? [“Marrying up...?” :^) ]
It's happened before, it could happen again. One barrier is that the ones who did it before are still out there, zipping around in their cars and airplanes.
Obviously humans have the characteristics you mention, so you're asking about apes, monkeys, orangs, etc. Frankly, I haven't studied them, nor have I spent any time on the literature, so I really don't know. Like VadeRetro, I suspect that they won't get much better than they already are, because if "smart apes" started to appear, they'd be in big trouble, even more than their "dumb ape" relatives. As for the precise mechanism, you gotta know I can't answer that. I suspect (but don't know and certainly can't prove) that it's a function of both brain size and structure. If you've got it, you're able to be conscious; and if not, then not. All in all, I'm glad to be human, and although I recognize that the apes and I had the same ancestors, I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions.
Physics has not been compatible with classical physics for over a hundred years.
They are capable of revising and reshaping their world to lesser degree than we are, to greater degree than other animals. Do you agree? What does this tell you?
Don't know about the future. Radical improvements are, IMO, unlikely, they are probably stuck at a local maximum.