Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[Nickman]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

I don't think that the topic of Free Will has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical topic. We have free will because we are all individuals that can and will do as we please, but this is many times limited by the society and situations surrounding us. Just having a thinking brain that works independently of other thinking brains is enough scientific reason for the possibility to exercise free will or IOW choices.

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

I don't think that the topic of Free Will has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical topic. We have free will because we are all individuals that can and will do as we please, but this is many times limited by the society and situations surrounding us. Just having a thinking brain that works independently of other thinking brains is enough scientific reason for the possibility to exercise free will or IOW choices.

It often seems like an open and shut case. But that only lasts until we ask, "What is it that is doing the choosing?"

Then, all-of-sudden we are stuck with a real mystery.

Is there some actual "Free Agent" making free choices?

Or is the brain simply a materialistic biological computer that is simply doing nothing more than operating solely based on the laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the former is true, the it appears that there must be some mysterious "Free Agent" that needs to be scientifically explained, apart from the standard laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the latter is true, then doesn't that genuinely bring into question the very concept that "Free Will" may actually be a total illusion?

For me this is a very profound question.

I'm not claiming that we can even answer this question at this time. I don't claim to have the answer. But what I am suggesting that if that is indeed the case that we don't yet have a definitive answer, then can there be any scientific basis for the very concept of "Free Will". Especially in terms of holding any imagined "Free Agents" responsible for having made "Free Will" choices.

It seems to me that the scientific stance would need to be "No", we cannot technically hold anyone responsible for having made a free will choice.

This doesn't mean that a secular society couldn't still incarcerate criminals on the grounds that their deterministic brains don't seem to be well-programmed. It also doesn't mean that they couldn't try to "re-program" criminal brains.

But holding anyone actually "responsible" for any of this?

I don't think there is any scientific grounds for pointing blame. Unless there can be scientific grounds that some "Free Agent" independent from the mere unfolding of the laws of physics is involved. But how could that be based on physics?

It does seem to be a quite profound dilemma. Of course, it's not a dilemma if we simply reject the notion of a free agent. But then science would be taking the stance that it makes no sense to blame anyone for the decisions they make then.

No free will = No one to blame (or no one to hold responsible for the choices being made)

[Nickman]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

I don't think that the topic of Free Will has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical topic. We have free will because we are all individuals that can and will do as we please, but this is many times limited by the society and situations surrounding us. Just having a thinking brain that works independently of other thinking brains is enough scientific reason for the possibility to exercise free will or IOW choices.

It often seems like an open and shut case. But that only lasts until we ask, "What is it that is doing the choosing?"

Then, all-of-sudden we are stuck with a real mystery.

Is there some actual "Free Agent" making free choices?

Or is the brain simply a materialistic biological computer that is simply doing nothing more than operating solely based on the laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the former is true, the it appears that there must be some mysterious "Free Agent" that needs to be scientifically explained, apart from the standard laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the latter is true, then doesn't that genuinely bring into question the very concept that "Free Will" may actually be a total illusion?

For me this is a very profound question.

I'm not claiming that we can even answer this question at this time. I don't claim to have the answer. But what I am suggesting that if that is indeed the case that we don't yet have a definitive answer, then can there be any scientific basis for the very concept of "Free Will". Especially in terms of holding any imagined "Free Agents" responsible for having made "Free Will" choices.

It seems to me that the scientific stance would need to be "No", we cannot technically hold anyone responsible for having made a free will choice.

This doesn't mean that a secular society couldn't still incarcerate criminals on the grounds that their deterministic brains don't seem to be well-programmed. It also doesn't mean that they couldn't try to "re-program" criminal brains.

But holding anyone actually "responsible" for any of this?

I don't think there is any scientific grounds for pointing blame. Unless there can be scientific grounds that some "Free Agent" independent from the mere unfolding of the laws of physics is involved. But how could that be based on physics?

It does seem to be a quite profound dilemma. Of course, it's not a dilemma if we simply reject the notion of a free agent. But then science would be taking the stance that it makes no sense to blame anyone for the decisions they make then.

No free will = No one to blame (or no one to hold responsible for the choices being made)

I think that if we start to look that deep into the subject, we negate our humanity and the morality of our choices and the consequences that they can cause. Our brains process thought through chemical processes, but I don't think that this chemical nature negates the idea that our thoughts and subsequent actions are our own and that we cannot be divorced from them.

[scourge99]

It often seems like an open and shut case. But that only lasts until we ask, "What is it that is doing the choosing?"

A mind. Which is without a doubt a manifestation of a working brain.

Then, all-of-sudden we are stuck with a real mystery.

Is there some actual "Free Agent" making free choices?

A mind does make choices. But those choices are nonetheless bound by deterministic forces in nature (save for some pinch of randomness in the system).

Or is the brain simply a materialistic biological computer that is simply doing nothing more than operating solely based on the laws of physics and cause and effect.
If the former is true, the it appears that there must be some mysterious "Free Agent" that needs to be scientifically explained, apart from the standard laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the latter is true, then doesn't that genuinely bring into question the very concept that "Free Will" may actually be a total illusion?

The brain-computer analogy is not perfect. For example, there is no software/hardware boundary in brains. Biological synapses are far more complex than logic gates. Etc.

Comparing the brain to a computer is an imperfect comparison, thus if you draw conclusions about brains purely based on conclusions about computers you are potentially making a mistake.

For me this is a very profound question.

I'm not claiming that we can even answer this question at this time. I don't claim to have the answer. But what I am suggesting that if that is indeed the case that we don't yet have a definitive answer, then can there be any scientific basis for the very concept of "Free Will". Especially in terms of holding any imagined "Free Agents" responsible for having made "Free Will" choices.

It seems to me that the scientific stance would need to be "No", we cannot technically hold anyone responsible for having made a free will choice.

Yes we can. Because people have intentions and motivations which we hold them accountable for. Rocks, ants, and other things do not. We don't hold rocks or ants accountable except in the purely causal sense. For example, the apple was responsible for hitting Newton in the head. But we do hold beings like humans MORALLY responsible for their actions based on their thoughts and intentions.

For example, if you are driving your car and your tire blows out causing you to kill a pedestrian it is not morally equivalent to intentionally running over a pedestrian. Why? Because intentions and motivations often make the difference between moral and immoral actions. We don't hold people accountable for unintentional actions (some exceptions, for example if they are willfully negligent) but we do hold them accountable based on their motivations and intentions. It doesn't matter if those intentions and motivations are the result of deterministic processes or not.

This doesn't mean that a secular society couldn't still incarcerate criminals on the grounds that their deterministic brains don't seem to be well-programmed. It also doesn't mean that they couldn't try to "re-program" criminal brains.

But holding anyone actually "responsible" for any of this?

I don't think there is any scientific grounds for pointing blame. Unless there can be scientific grounds that some "Free Agent" independent from the mere unfolding of the laws of physics is involved. But how could that be based on physics?

It does seem to be a quite profound dilemma. Of course, it's not a dilemma if we simply reject the notion of a free agent. But then science would be taking the stance that it makes no sense to blame anyone for the decisions they make then.

No free will = No one to blame (or no one to hold responsible for the choices being made)

You think there is a dilemma because you are implicitly arguing that freewill and determinism are incompatible. If freewill and determinism are compatible (which they are) then there is no dilemma.

People make conscious choices. Those choices are the results of deterministic processes in their brain/body. But those choices are nonetheless the product of their mind, intentions, desires, goals, etc. Thus, we hold people MORALLY responsible for their actions with respect to their intentions. And of course we hold people CAUSALLY responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions.

[Divine Insight]

Comparing the brain to a computer is an imperfect comparison, thus if you draw conclusions about brains purely based on conclusions about computers you are potentially making a mistake.

No Scourge, this is an incorrect statement on your behalf. Obviously a misunderstanding on your behalf.

Nowhere did I say that a human brain is a DIGITAL computer.

On the contrary it's clearly not. It doesn't run like a digital computer at all. It has no ALU or CPU that simply runs instructions sequential that are stored in memory as a "program".

The human brain most certainly is NOT a "Digital Computer".

However, it clearly is an "ANALOG COMPUTER".

Most people are not familiar with analog computers because they never caught on commercially. They are far more difficult to program and comprehend. None the less they are indeed computers. But they aren't anything at all like "Digital computers" like the ones we use on the Internet.

So when I say that the human brain is a "Biological Computer" I'm not even suggesting an "analogy", I'm stating that it actually is a biological analog computer. No analogy required.

The human brain is a biologically constructed analog computer.

So I'm not even making an analogy here at all. And you are incorrect to say that I am making an "imperfect comparison", because I'm not comparing the human brain with a digital computer. In fact, I would argue that any comparison of the human brain with a digital computer is not only "imperfect" but its actually a totally wrong idea.

So when I say that the human brain is a biological computer, I obviously mean that it's a analog computer, because nothing else makes any sense. An analog computer is all it can be. Although having said that, it could potentially have some "digital type processes" within it as well (i.e. processes that operate as on/off states). But overall it's definitely not a digital computer. It's obviously an analog computer (or neural network) which is just another name for analogy computer.

Yes we can. Because people have intentions and motivations which we hold them accountable for. Rocks, ants, and other things do not. We don't hold rocks or ants accountable except in the purely causal sense. For example, the apple was responsible for hitting Newton in the head. But we do hold beings like humans MORALLY responsible for their actions based on their thoughts and intentions.

And this would be absolutely no different from holding an analog computer responsible for its thoughts and intentions. Of course to do that, you would need to have an analog computer that has become sentient (i.e. self-aware), but it would still be nothing more than the "Neural Network" that it is. In other words, it would be nothing more than the physical configuration if it analog neural network.

So ultimately if you held it responsible for it's thoughts and intentions, you would basically be holding it responsible for merely being in the configuration that it just happens to currently be in.

You would need to argue that this analog computer has become a "Free Will Agent".

But where was that line actually crossed? At what point did the analog computer change from being nothing more than a configuration of neural networks to becoming a "Free Agent"?

Was the awakening of sentience the line that has been crossed between not being a free will agent to having become a free will agent? Is self-awareness the key element and fundamental definition of Free Will?

That seems a bit controversial. The reason being that you can have two analogy computers, neural networks, or biological brains. One of these can have been wired to generate all manner of negative and hostile "thoughts". The other one can have been wired to generate all manner of positive and loving thoughts.

Now when you turn both of these brains on they both become sentience (self aware). But one brain keep generating negative and hostile thoughts and decisions, whilst the other brain keeps generating positive and loving thoughts and decisions.

So how does it make any sense to hold the "Sentience" or "Self Awareness" responsible for the thoughts and decisions it's making when fundamentally it really has no Free Will Choice because it has already been wired at a fundamental level to be innately good or bad.

I think this is a fair problem. And this does seem to be the crux of it.

If we're going to hold sentience, or self-awareness responsible for making decisions we must first eliminate any possibility that it has NO REAL CHOICE in the matter.

And I think you would be hard-pressed to make a sound scientific case for that.

Simply recognizing that biological brains are indeed nothing more than neural networks (i.e. Analog Computers), then how can science blame the sentience of these computers for how they have been innately fundamentally wired?

So I don't see where you have even begun to address the issue at all. Instead you seem to be just "jumping" to the conclusion that if a brain is self-aware then it must also have FREE WILL CHOICE.

I don't think that follows so easily.

For example, if you are driving your car and your tire blows out causing you to kill a pedestrian it is not morally equivalent to intentionally running over a pedestrian. Why? Because intentions and motivations often make the difference between moral and immoral actions. We don't hold people accountable for unintentional actions (some exceptions, for example if they are willfully negligent) but we do hold them accountable based on their motivations and intentions. It doesn't matter if those intentions and motivations are the result of deterministic processes or not.

But still, you are just assuming that sentience or self-awareness fully addressed the origin of intent and motivation.

I think you would have a very hard time making a case for that. Especially considering that the sentience or self-awareness is nothing more than a product of the underlying fundamental neural network (or analogy biological computer configuration).

You would need to make a case that you could "remove" the sentience or self-awareness from the configuration of the underlying neural net sufficiently enough that you could point to the sentience or self-awareness itself as being the "responsible party".

But then you are already suggesting a "mysterious soul" of sorts. You are already suggesting that the mere emergence of sentience or self-awareness has itself become a "FREE WILL AGENT" that then has total control over the underlying neural network that gave rise to it.

That's already getting "spooky" or "spiritual".

If sentience and self-awareness are nothing more than an "emergent property" of an underlying neural network (biological analog computer), then surely that sentience and self-awareness is totally dependent upon the configuration of that neural network or brain.

So all you are doing is pointing at an emergent property of an analog computer and saying, "Hey I think we should hold that emergent property responsible for whatever the analog computer that gave rise to it does!"

I just don't think your arguments address the situation sufficiently.

Especially if you are going to argue that the brain is not a biological computer. It is. It's a biological analog computer. NOT a digital computer. So you need to get that straightened way first.

You think there is a dilemma because you are implicitly arguing that freewill and determinism are incompatible. If freewill and determinism are compatible (which they are) then there is no dilemma.

I agree, but I don't feel that you have resolved that freewill can be compatible with determinism.

People make conscious choices. Those choices are the results of deterministic processes in their brain/body. But those choices are nonetheless the product of their mind, intentions, desires, goals, etc. Thus, we hold people MORALLY responsible for their actions with respect to their intentions. And of course we hold people CAUSALLY responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions.

But you are acting as though we can somehow separate their "mind, intentions, desires, and goals" from the deterministic possesses and configurations that constitutes the physical configuration of their brain.

I don't see where you have made a case that these things could be separated out.

What are intentions, desires, goals, etc, if not the current configuration of the neural network that is the brain?

And this physical configuration had to have been the result of nothing other than the cause and effects of the natural laws of physics with a little bit of randomness sprinkled in.

So where is there anyone to "Hold Responsible" for that?

You cannot be the slightness bit responsible for the current configuration of your neural net UNLESS, you are some sort of mysterious mystical or spiritual FREE AGENT that is totally separated from the physical laws of physics to the point where you could make choices unrelated to the current configuration of your neural network or brain.

It's almost like you want to have the cake and eat it too.

You want to support the idea of a purely secular materialistic existence that unfolds solely by the laws of physics, whilst simultaneously holding an emergent property of sentience responsible for having shaped its own thoughts and decisions.

It would seem to me that even the emergent property of "self awareness" would be just as deterministic as anything else. From whence would it obtain "Free Will"?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

The problem is that moral accountability is an entirely different language from that of science. I think you are correct that science does not provide a basis for moral accountability, but I don't think that alone means we should discard the concept.

Heck, complete determinism is a defeater for all moral oughts, so from that standpoint you can't use it as a basis to oppose holding people morally accountable. I mean, you can call it irrational, but you can't call it wrong without being irrational yourself.

I think free will is an intrinsic assumption of the self. Believing in ones own free will is the same thing as believing one exists at all. It's axiomatic when it comes to anything subjective, like meaning and value.

However, I am not a compatiblist. In fact, I think the systems are hopelessly incompatible. But both systems are real. Simply put, there are two different ways in which the human mind projects its thoughts onto reality, but they don't mix very well.

And so we have philosophical quandaries.

[Divine Insight]

The problem is that moral accountability is an entirely different language from that of science.

I agree. And it must necessarily remain so until science can provide evidence, or a convincing argument, for a "Free Will Agent" that is totally free from the laws of physics, and/or free from the current configuration of a Neural Network (or biological analog computer, or brain)

So moral accountability can currently have no scientific basis. And that's all I'm saying at this point.

I think you are correct that science does not provide a basis for moral accountability, but I don't think that alone means we should discard the concept.

Well, this becomes a very intricate subject. Because as Scourge had pointed out, we can attribute "accountability" of sorts to any action. In other words, we can hold a storm "causally accountable" for the destruction of a city. But there's clearly no "moral accountability" there.

In a similar way we can still hold humans "causally accountable" for their actions. But technically this is not the same as holding them "morally accountable".

I'm not saying that a society that is based on science would need to allow criminal offenders to "Walk". They can still be incarcerated, and even viewed as "defective biological units". To be potentially repaired (i.e. cured), or ultimately pronounced to be unrepairable (permanently dangerous).

But that's not "moral accountability", it's just "causal accountability".

And this is a quite different mindset. After all, we would never consider "punishing" a storm. (not that we could) But still, why punish humans either if they are nothing more than defective (or at least dangerous) biological computers.

Is it their fault that this is what they are? That's the bottom line question.

This is where the concept of morality comes in. The concept of moral responsibility automatically brings with it an accompanying concept of "blame". The person is being blamed for their "Free Will Choices" when, scientifically, it's never been established that they even have any free will to begin with.

Heck, complete determinism is a defeater for all moral oughts, so from that standpoint you can't use it as a basis to oppose holding people morally accountable. I mean, you can call it irrational, but you can't call it wrong without being irrational yourself.

I agree.

If I have used the word "wrong" in previous posts, I actually meant "irrational".

Although in my defense (if I had previously used the word wrong) what I really meant is that it's "Wrong thinking" (not morally wrong). And that's what irrationality is. Irrationality is thinking that is not rational (i.e. "wrong thinking" with no intent to suggest that it is "immoral thinking")

I think free will is an intrinsic assumption of the self. Believing in ones own free will is the same thing as believing one exists at all. It's axiomatic when it comes to anything subjective, like meaning and value.

I agree, but I also hold that it can be an illusion.

I would love to believe in free will. I would love nothing more than to believe that all of my decisions have been totally free will decisions that I can personally take full responsibility and credit for. I would be more than happy to take full responsibility for all decisions I make.

But the only reason I'm so quick to embrace this concept is because I'm basically a "Good Person". If I am held responsible for having made my own choices I can be proud of myself and expect to have a Gold Star pasted on my forehead on judgment day.

So I'm all for the concept of Free Will. But just because I'm for it doesn't make it a scientifically confirmed fact of life.

The real question to be addressed is not to ask what I would like to be true, but rather, "What is true?".

However, I am not a compatiblist. In fact, I think the systems are hopelessly incompatible.

I do to. And that is the scientific problem.

It's not a problem for science in general. It may actually be true that we have no Free Will. Maybe the secular materialists are right. Maybe Free Will is entirely an illusion and it doesn't exist. Then science is correct, and there is no problem in science.

However, there would still remain a problem if a society is "based upon science" and continues to hold people "morally responsible" for their actions.

That would need to change. They could still be held "causally responsible", in that they were the cause of certain actions. And they could be dealt with on that level, and from that perspective of understanding.

But to continue to suggest that those people are "immoral" or should be "punished" for their Free Will choices no longer makes any sense. Because science does not allow for a "Free Will Agent" to exist beyond the causal effects of the natural laws of physics.

So there's a fundamental issue here that needs to be addressed by the "Scientific secular materialists" that seems to be swept under the carpet as somehow not being important.

And that's what needs to be addressed.

I personally think that it can easily be addressed. We can, as a scientific society, recognize that there is no such thing as a "Free Will Agent", and build our society upon that observation. That alone is not devastating. On the contrary it could be very productive.

But what I object to is to claim simultaneously that we are a scientific-based society whilst "hypocritically and without justification" continue to hold people "morally responsible" for their actions.

We can't do both simultaneously without being inconsistent.

If science is right, then the concept of "moral responsibility" has to go. Although it could be replaced with a concept of "causal responsibility" which would be more in line with reality (given that secular scientific materialism is true).

But both systems are real. Simply put, there are two different ways in which the human mind projects its thoughts onto reality, but they don't mix very well.

And so we have philosophical quandaries.

I personally reject this notion entirely. Especially if we are going to accept a scientific view of reality. To say that "Both Systems are Real" is to refuse to acknowledge that they aren't. This would be nothing more than demanding that a "Free Will Agent" still exists in spite of the fact that it is scientifically impossible.

Why sweep the problems of secular materialism under the carpet and pretend to pass the problem over to "philosophy"?

That makes no sense.

We are either "Free Will Agents" or we aren't. And if we aren't, then to just toss the ball into the philosopher's court would be ludicrous. It would also be unproductive, and irrational.

If the scientific conclusion is that there can be no "Free Will Agent" that is completely independent of secular materialism and the laws of physics, then why not face the music?

It's the concept of a "Free Will Agent" that has to be tossed out. Not merely passed over to philosophers to say, "Here you guys do something with this because we don't think it's real".

Why in the world would a society that is based upon scientific thinking do such a thing?

Why would you hand philosophers a "ball" that you don't have any evidence even exists, and ask them to do something about it because it doesn't make any sense to you?

That would be absurd, and totally irrational.

If we can't make a scientific case for a Free Will Agent that is complete independent of the secular laws of cause and effect, then we shouldn't even be supporting the "ball" of a Free Will Agent at all, much less handing this ball to philosophers asking them to do something with it.

Who knows what the philosophers might do with it? They would be toying with something that isn't even real. Therefore anything they did with it would have no basis in reality anyway.

[scourge99]

Comparing the brain to a computer is an imperfect comparison, thus if you draw conclusions about brains purely based on conclusions about computers you are potentially making a mistake.

No Scourge, this is an incorrect statement on your behalf. Obviously a misunderstanding on your behalf.

Nowhere did I say that a human brain is a DIGITAL computer.

I didn't say that you did. I said that comparing the brain to a computer can be misleading in some cases because its an imperfect comparison.

On the contrary it's clearly not. It doesn't run like a digital computer at all. It has no ALU or CPU that simply runs instructions sequential that are stored in memory as a "program".

The human brain most certainly is NOT a "Digital Computer".

However, it clearly is an "ANALOG COMPUTER".

Only if you ASSUME something like the Computational theory of the mind. Which i tend to agree with. Others do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatio ... ry_of_mind

Most people are not familiar with analog computers because they never caught on commercially. They are far more difficult to program and comprehend. None the less they are indeed computers. But they aren't anything at all like "Digital computers" like the ones we use on the Internet.

So when I say that the human brain is a "Biological Computer" I'm not even suggesting an "analogy", I'm stating that it actually is a biological analog computer. No analogy required.

The human brain is a biologically constructed analog computer.

So I'm not even making an analogy here at all. And you are incorrect to say that I am making an "imperfect comparison", because I'm not comparing the human brain with a digital computer. In fact, I would argue that any comparison of the human brain with a digital computer is not only "imperfect" but its actually a totally wrong idea.

So when I say that the human brain is a biological computer, I obviously mean that it's a analog computer, because nothing else makes any sense. An analog computer is all it can be. Although having said that, it could potentially have some "digital type processes" within it as well (i.e. processes that operate as on/off states). But overall it's definitely not a digital computer. It's obviously an analog computer (or neural network) which is just another name for analogy computer.

well its not OBVIOUS at all that when you say the mind is a computer that its an analog computer. Perhaps you THINK its obvious to you, but it wasn't to me.

And i don't agree that the brain is an analog computer. The analog/digital distinction is senseless in this regard except perhaps to say that you think the brain is a computer but its not a digital one. I.E., saying the brain is an analog computer is just to say that the brain isn't a digital computer but still a computational machine (a computer) of some sort. In other words, you are SPECULATING that we can reproduce consciousness in a "computer" and hedging your bets by calling it an "analog computer" (IE, a computer that is not digital)

Yes we can. Because people have intentions and motivations which we hold them accountable for. Rocks, ants, and other things do not. We don't hold rocks or ants accountable except in the purely causal sense. For example, the apple was responsible for hitting Newton in the head. But we do hold beings like humans MORALLY responsible for their actions based on their thoughts and intentions.

And this would be absolutely no different from holding an analog computer responsible for its thoughts and intentions.

I know of no analog computer that has thoughts or intentions. Thus its nonsense to hold a computer, rock, or ant MORALLY responsible for its actions. The only way its RESPONSIBLE is that its CAUSALLY responsible for its actions.

Of course to do that, you would need to have an analog computer that has become sentient (i.e. self-aware), but it would still be nothing more than the "Neural Network" that it is. In other words, it would be nothing more than the physical configuration if it analog neural network.

You are making grandiose assumptions that a computer can become self aware as humans are. Such speculations have no basis in realty, only in science fiction at this time.

So ultimately if you held it responsible for it's thoughts and intentions, you would basically be holding it responsible for merely being in the configuration that it just happens to currently be in.

Assuming that a computer can become self aware such that its IDENTICAL or very similar to a human mind, then yes, its intentions and thoughts would play a large role, just like in humans, in determining morally culpability.

It doesn't matter if the mind/body that performed an immoral action was a self aware computer or a human. The only thing that matters is that the being has immoral intentions and acted upon them. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about sentient rocks, dinosaurs, or robots. The moral calculus is IDENTICAL.

You would need to argue that this analog computer has become a "Free Will Agent".

a vague and obscure term. You'll have to actually define what you mean by "free will agent" if i'm to answer your challenge. Given that you have penchant for talking gobbledygook, i expect it will take several posts to nail down an agreed upon and coherent definition.

But where was that line actually crossed? At what point did the analog computer change from being nothing more than a configuration of neural networks to becoming a "Free Agent"?

1) You are once again assuming a computer can even become conscious. The stuff of science fiction, not science, at the moment.
2) If I knew exactly how all the 100 billion+ neurons in our brain manifested consciousness, i'd have a Nobel prize. But we know it does despite not knowing exactly how just like we know all life on earth is related despite not having a fossil or evidence of the first lifeform(s).

Was the awakening of sentience the line that has been crossed between not being a free will agent to having become a free will agent? Is self-awareness the key element and fundamental definition of Free Will?

i can't answer these questions until you accurately define "free will agent" and "freewill". These terms are as nebulous and vague as "god" and "spiritual".

That seems a bit controversial. The reason being that you can have two analogy computers, neural networks, or biological brains. One of these can have been wired to generate all manner of negative and hostile "thoughts". The other one can have been wired to generate all manner of positive and loving thoughts.

Once again, pure speculation and science fiction. We have no idea what it takes to produce consciousness besides an organic brain.

Assuming the computational theory of the mind is accurate then yes, it MAY be possible to reproduce a human-like mind via a computer. Then again, it may not be because of some technological hurdle or fundamental difference or something else.

Now when you turn both of these brains on they both become sentience (self aware). But one brain keep generating negative and hostile thoughts and decisions, whilst the other brain keeps generating positive and loving thoughts and decisions.

You proceed with even more grandiose assumptions. Not only do you claim that we reproduce minds with computers, but that once we do we can finely tune them to have positive and negative hostile thoughts.

What do you suppose a unicorn's favorite food is?

So how does it make any sense to hold the "Sentience" or "Self Awareness" responsible for the thoughts and decisions it's making when fundamentally it really has no Free Will Choice because it has already been wired at a fundamental level to be innately good or bad.

"free will choice"... what does that mean????

Its logically contradictory to say that someone makes a choice and doesn't have freewill.

If we're going to hold sentience, or self-awareness responsible for making decisions we must first eliminate any possibility that it has NO REAL CHOICE in the matter.

So sentient beings can;t make choices now? So when i choose between coke and pepsi, i'm not making a choice? I'm lying when i say i deliberate between the two and choose one?

Simply recognizing that biological brains are indeed nothing more than neural networks (i.e. Analog Computers), then how can science blame the sentience of these computers for how they have been innately fundamentally wired?

I've said this repeatedly: because the sentient beings have intentions and thoughts. And we hold people MORALLY accountable for their actions oftentimes based on their intentions and motivations.

The are only one way i can think of to get around this and that is to argue for moral nihilism. The morality doesn't actually "exist". Good lcuk wiht that. because of morality does "exist" then morally culpability certainly does and ONLY applies to conscious beings.

So I don't see where you have even begun to address the issue at all. Instead you seem to be just "jumping" to the conclusion that if a brain is self-aware then it must also have FREE WILL CHOICE.

Well it depends on what you MEAN by that term you keep repeating without accurately and precisely defining: "free will choice".

Sam Harris would argue that we don't have "freewill". Arguing that "a puppet is only free as long as he loves his strings". Dan Dennet spins this arguing that compatabilist freewill is the only coherent and form of freewill worth having. So both of them actually agree with one another but DISAGREE on terms. Perhaps this is similar to our disagreement. You want "freewill" to be something more than it logically can be.

For example, if you are driving your car and your tire blows out causing you to kill a pedestrian it is not morally equivalent to intentionally running over a pedestrian. Why? Because intentions and motivations often make the difference between moral and immoral actions. We don't hold people accountable for unintentional actions (some exceptions, for example if they are willfully negligent) but we do hold them accountable based on their motivations and intentions. It doesn't matter if those intentions and motivations are the result of deterministic processes or not.

But still, you are just assuming that sentience or self-awareness fully addressed the origin of intent and motivation.

I think you would have a very hard time making a case for that. Especially considering that the sentience or self-awareness is nothing more than a product of the underlying fundamental neural network (or analogy biological computer configuration).

You would need to make a case that you could "remove" the sentience or self-awareness from the configuration of the underlying neural net sufficiently enough that you could point to the sentience or self-awareness itself as being the "responsible party".

I don't see you can call something "conscious" unless it possesses intentions and motivations. Just like don't see how you can remove all the atoms of a rock and still call it a rock.

Its not like we have a device which can detect consciousness. We determine something is conscious based on how it acts similar to ourselves (we assume others are conscious like we are and aren't philosophical zombies or something else)

But then you are already suggesting a "mysterious soul" of sorts. You are already suggesting that the mere emergence of sentience or self-awareness has itself become a "FREE WILL AGENT" that then has total control over the underlying neural network that gave rise to it.

I have no idea what these sentences even mean.

If sentience and self-awareness are nothing more than an "emergent property" of an underlying neural network (biological analog computer), then surely that sentience and self-awareness is totally dependent upon the configuration of that neural network or brain.

Not necessarily true. The environment, conditions, and state of the brain, to name a fw examples, may play a role.

Once again, we don't know exactly how the mind manifests from the billions of neurons. But we do know the mind is produced by the brain.

So all you are doing is pointing at an emergent property of an analog computer and saying, "Hey I think we should hold that emergent property responsible for whatever the analog computer that gave rise to it does!"

No, i'm saying that
1) morality exists
2) conscious beings are moral agents
3) humans are conscious

You think there is a dilemma because you are implicitly arguing that freewill and determinism are incompatible. If freewill and determinism are compatible (which they are) then there is no dilemma.

I agree, but I don't feel that you have resolved that freewill can be compatible with determinism.

Well i think you need to read up on that matter or present your reasoning why its incompatible. I can't prove its not incompatible except to say that it is compatible..

People make conscious choices. Those choices are the results of deterministic processes in their brain/body. But those choices are nonetheless the product of their mind, intentions, desires, goals, etc. Thus, we hold people MORALLY responsible for their actions with respect to their intentions. And of course we hold people CAUSALLY responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions.

But you are acting as though we can somehow separate their "mind, intentions, desires, and goals" from the deterministic possesses and configurations that constitutes the physical configuration of their brain.

I don't even see how you can connect intentions with "deterministic processes". To say so is to say you've figured out how exactly neurons manifst "mind, intentions, desires, and goals".

We know minds like ours have intentions, thoughts, goals desires, etc.
We know our mind is a manifestation of a working brain.
We know brains are bound by purely deterministic processes (physics, chemistry, etc).

What are intentions, desires, goals, etc, if not the current configuration of the neural network that is the brain?

I don't know. neither do you. If we knew that we'd have a Nobel prize.

And this physical configuration had to have been the result of nothing other than the cause and effects of the natural laws of physics with a little bit of randomness sprinkled in.

So where is there anyone to "Hold Responsible" for that?

Because morality exists.
Do you not think morality exists? Are there not wrong and right actions for a conscious being to choose from given a situation?

If I CHOOSE to do an immoral action, doesn't that make me RESPONSIBLE for it? (yes)
If the universe were rewound and circumstances were identical and i chose the same immoral action everytime, does that somehow make it amoral or morally okay? (No.)

You cannot be the slightness bit responsible for the current configuration of your neural net UNLESS, you are some sort of mysterious mystical or spiritual FREE AGENT that is totally separated from the physical laws of physics to the point where you could make choices unrelated to the current configuration of your neural network or brain.

We aren't separated from the physical laws of nature. Given determinism, we cannot make a different choice than the one we made. No matter how many times the universe is rewound and played. That doesn't mean we are somehow not morally responsible for that choice because we nonetheless MADE the choice.

You want to support the idea of a purely secular materialistic existence that unfolds solely by the laws of physics, whilst simultaneously holding an emergent property of sentience responsible for having shaped its own thoughts and decisions.

There is NOTHING contradictory about having thoughts and making decisions despite them being rooted and bound by determinism.

For example, suppose you are given the choice between coke and Pepsi. You choose coke. If we rewound the universe and everything was identical (no randomness either) then you would make the same decision EVERY SINGLE TIME. You CAN'T CHOOSE otherwise because your choice is deterministic. But you still had the SENSATION of choice. You still deliberated. You still made a choice in your head and acted upon it. That is freewill. You make choices but your choice cannot have been otherwise because of determinism. Sam Harris doesn't think that should be called "freewill". Dan Dennet disagrees saying its the only form of "freewill" worth having.

It would seem to me that even the emergent property of "self awareness" would be just as deterministic as anything else. From whence would it obtain "Free Will"?

The ability to choose is an exercise of freewill. That your choice cannot have been otherwise does not make it any less your intentional and deliberate choice.

What would it mean to choose differently than what you did? If the universe was rewound and circumstances identical and you somehow chose differently, what would account for that? Magic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism

[Divine Insight]

Nowhere did I say that a human brain is a DIGITAL computer.

I didn't say that you did. I said that comparing the brain to a computer can be misleading in some cases because its an imperfect comparison. [/quote]

Yes, it can be misleading if a person is thinking in terms of how a digital computer works. But it may be spot on in terms of how an analog computer works.

The human brain most certainly is NOT a "Digital Computer".

However, it clearly is an "ANALOG COMPUTER".

Only if you ASSUME something like the Computational theory of the mind. Which i tend to agree with. Others do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatio ... ry_of_mind

Well, I personally reject the theory that you pointed to at Wiki. And the reason being that they are indeed thinking in terms of how a digital computer works, and not an analog computer:

From the Wiki Article. Right off the bat at the beginning of the article they describe the fundamental basics of how a digital computer works:

The computational theory of mind is the theory that the mind/brain is a computer. The theory can be elaborated in many ways, the most popular of which is that the brain is a computer and the mind is the program that the brain runs.[3] An algorithm is an effective procedure: a step-by-step set of instructions that always results in an output (the same output every time), based only on the form of the input, and not what it means. Algorithms terminate in a finite number of steps, and they work for any admissible input. A program is the instantiation of an algorithm in a particular computer language. So the computational theory of mind is the claim that the mind is a machine that derives output representations of the world from input representations in a deterministic (non-random) and formal (non-semantic) way.

I've highlighted in red the descriptions they offer that are the same as how a digital computer works. They claim that the brain is merely a computer, whilst it requires a program to run it. They even go further to suggest that the program is a set of step-by-step instructions. And they even stat that the program is the instantiation of an algorithm in a particular computer language.

That's is NOT how an analog computer works at all. They are definitely thinking in terms of how a digital computer works.

So their "Computational Theory of Mind" is actually modeled after how digital computers work. I personally reject that theory as it appears to me to be obviously wrong.

Analog computers do not have programs that are separate from the computer. The current configuration of the analog computer is its programming. To change the programming of an analog computer you must change the configuration of the computer itself. And conversely if you change the wiring of the analog computer you necessarily change its programming. The analog computer is the program. There is no separation between the computer hardware and software. The configuration of the hardware is the program (i.e. the software). So actually an analogy computer has no "software" at all. There is no distinction between the hardware and the program in an analog computer.

And this is a quite important difference between analog and digital computers.

well its not OBVIOUS at all that when you say the mind is a computer that its an analog computer. Perhaps you THINK its obvious to you, but it wasn't to me.

It would seem to me that it should be obvious to anyone who truly understands how an analog computer works. I think the problem may actually reside in the fact that most people don't genuinely understand how an analog computer actually works.

And i don't agree that the brain is an analog computer. The analog/digital distinction is senseless in this regard except perhaps to say that you think the brain is a computer but its not a digital one. I.E., saying the brain is an analog computer is just to say that the brain isn't a digital computer but still a computational machine (a computer) of some sort. In other words, you are SPECULATING that we can reproduce consciousness in a "computer" and hedging your bets by calling it an "analog computer" (IE, a computer that is not digital)

But the distinction between an analog computer and a digital computer is quite real, and quite profound.

And YES, I most certainly do hold that if we want to create a truly sentient and conscious being the only way to do it is by building an analog computer.

In fact, I hold that this could never be accomplished with a digital computer. You might be able to program a digital computer to simulate the appearance of consciousness to an external observer, but that's precisely what it would be. A simulation that isn't itself actually having any experience of consciousness.

What would have become conscious? The hardware? Or the Software? The computer, or the program?

In an analogy computer there is no difference between the hardware and the software. The hardware is the software. If an analog computer is configured to exhibit sentient consciousness, than that's what's it's doing. It's not merely "simulating" this as a step-by-step algorithm, but instead it has taken on the entire configuration of "being in this state of mind".

The entire analog computer becomes the "Mind".

And this is actually what secular atheist are predicting!

They are predicting that "Mind" is an emergent property of a configuration space (i.e. the configuration of the analog neural network).

So this is in complete harmony with the secular view that mind is an emergent property of a complex configuration.

And this would be absolutely no different from holding an analog computer responsible for its thoughts and intentions.

I know of no analog computer that has thoughts or intentions. Thus its nonsense to hold a computer, rock, or ant MORALLY responsible for its actions. The only way its RESPONSIBLE is that its CAUSALLY responsible for its actions.
[/quote]

And how many analog computers have you seen that are as complex as the human brain?

In terms of technology, analog computers fell by the wayside when it became apparent that digital computers were far superior for "our purposes". Digital computers are extremely easy to program, and the mere fact that the hardware and software are entirely separate make programming them a snap.

You only need one digital computer, and you can write as many different programs you like to run on it.

When you build an analog computer, what you build is what you get. To reprogram it you need to rewire it. Or at least reconfigure it in terms of it's hardware.

Now we are actually doing this today by using "Programmable Array Logic" circuits also call PALs. These are electron logic networks that can be reprogrammed on the fly without having to rebuild them physically.

This is actually how our brain works. And we know this.

But you say that you've never seen an analog computer that you would hold responsible for being self-aware. So what? We just haven't ever built an analog computer that sophisticated yet.

Do you realize that the human brain has as many neurons as our galaxy has stars? And each neuron is basically an op-amp circuit (in a sense) that has thousands of connections to neighboring neurons.

Where have you ever seen an man-made analog computer that complex?

I'm not surprised at all that you have never seen a man-made analog computer that you would hold responsible for being self-aware. I haven't either.

You are making grandiose assumptions that a computer can become self aware as humans are. Such speculations have no basis in realty, only in science fiction at this time.

They are not speculations. They are sound hypotheses based upon what I know about how analog computer, or neural networks actually work.

In short Scourge, if you could program a digital computer to simulate self-awareness I might be impressed with your programming skills, but I would still be unconvinced that the digital computer is actually having an experience of self-awareness?

In a STEP-BY-STEP algorithmic program that is being executed one step at a time by a CPU, the question of what is it that is actually "Self Aware" becomes highly problematic. In fact, to me, it appears that the answer it NOTHING. In this scenario nothing is actually self-aware. All that's happening is that a STEP-BY-STEP algorithmic program is just simulating self-awareness.

But if an analog neural network became self-aware, then it's doing this as a whole because it is the configuration that has "become" self aware.

So the analog computer is the only way to achieve this. Doing it with a digital computer is just an algorithmic simulation that may produce results that appear to be self-aware, but clearly there would be nothing to there actually be aware?

What would be "Aware"? The Hardware? Or the STEP-BY-STEP software program?

In the analog computer it's clear that the whole configuration has become aware.

But then the question comes up: Can this configuration be held responsible for being in the configuration that it has found itself? Can it be held morally responsible for anything?

So ultimately if you held it responsible for it's thoughts and intentions, you would basically be holding it responsible for merely being in the configuration that it just happens to currently be in.

Assuming that a computer can become self aware such that its IDENTICAL or very similar to a human mind, then yes, its intentions and thoughts would play a large role, just like in humans, in determining morally culpability.
[/quote]

But WHO would be responsible for its thoughts and intentions if those very thoughts and intentions are a result of its "programming" (i.e. it's physical configuration)?

It doesn't matter if the mind/body that performed an immoral action was a self aware computer or a human. The only thing that matters is that the being has immoral intentions and acted upon them. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about sentient rocks, dinosaurs, or robots. The moral calculus is IDENTICAL.

I absolutely AGREE! There would be NO DIFFERENCE!

And that's my point.

Whether we are talking about an analog computer, or a human brain, the thoughts and intentions that it has are a result of its configuration.

How can you hold a human responsible for the current configuration of their brain?

Are you trying to suggest that there is a FREE WILL AGENT involve somewhere in this process that can be held responsible for how the brain become configured?

Whether you are a good person or a bad person would be a result of the configuration of your brain. Most of that was given to you by DNA (something totally beyond your control). Quite a bit of it was given to you during development as a small child (again totally beyond "Your Control").

And finally, at what age do you ever take over the reigns? At what age can "YOU" claim to have finally become the "FREE WILL AGENT" who is now in control of how your neural network should continue to develop?

What is in charge of your neural network OTHER than the neural network itself?

Well, of course, we already know that there are many physical things that can cause your neural network to develop in ways that are even beyond the control of the neural network itself. So the brain can't even be held responsible for its own development. At least not entirely.

And even if we claim that it can be responsible for its own development to some degree, at WHAT POINT, does this occur? At what point does the brain move from just being a physical neural network configuration to having become a totally "FREE WILL AGENT" that can make choices and decisions that are independent of the the very configuration that it is?

And if that never happens, then what is ultimately being held responsible for moral integrity? Nothing more than a configuration that no one ever had any control over at any time.

You would need to argue that this analog computer has become a "Free Will Agent".

a vague and obscure term. You'll have to actually define what you mean by "free will agent" if i'm to answer your challenge. Given that you have penchant for talking gobbledygook, i expect it will take several posts to nail down an agreed upon and coherent definition.

For me the term is extremely simple to define:

A "Free Will Agent" is the agent that would be required to change the configuration of a neural network that itself gives rise to consciousness, thoughts, and decisions.

I agree that it's and "obscure term" because the concept is absurd. There can be no such thing as a "Free Will Agent" in a purely secular materialistic world.

So unless you claim that such a thing actually EXISTS, then why should I even need to define it?

I'm claiming that in a purely secular materialistic world a "Free Will Agent" cannot exist.

And therefore I'm asking you the question, "WHO are you holding responsible for morally?"

If there is no such thing as a "Free Will Agent", then who's responsible for moral actions? The neural network?

But what sense does that make if the Neural Network itself only came to be by the standard laws of physics and cause and effect. The neural Network itself can have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for it's current configuration.

How could it? The only way it could be held responsible is if it was indeed a "Free Will Agent" that could somehow rise above the laws of physics and rewire itself in spite of the fact that it only exists in the first place because it has been wired by nothing more than the causal laws of physics.

At what point does someone become responsible for having evolved to become a "Free Will Agent" that has risen above the laws of physics?

Because that's what you would need to have become if you are now going to take control of how your own neural net continues to evolve in SPITE of the laws of physics.

But where was that line actually crossed? At what point did the analog computer change from being nothing more than a configuration of neural networks to becoming a "Free Agent"?

1) You are once again assuming a computer can even become conscious. The stuff of science fiction, not science, at the moment.

But in a purely secular materialist worldview that's the Hypothesis that we are working under. We are nothing more than biologically evolved brains.

So I'm trying to work within the secular worldview here. If you want to call that science fiction then I can only assume that you believe the secular world view to be science fiction.

2) If I knew exactly how all the 100 billion+ neurons in our brain manifested consciousness, i'd have a Nobel prize. But we know it does despite not knowing exactly how just like we know all life on earth is related despite not having a fossil or evidence of the first lifeform(s).

You don't need to now how the brain works to understand what I'm saying.

All you need to realize is that without a "Free Will Agent" (something that can be totally independent from the causal laws of physics) it doesn't matter how the brain works. It could never evolve to be held responsible for what it had become, because the brain itself is nothing but a hodgepodge result of the causal laws of physics.

How could a brain ever be held responsible for what it has become when it wasn't in charge of designing itself?

It will forever be at the mercy of the configuration that it has currently evolved to be.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying that this can't be the truth of reality. Perhaps this is the truth of reality. All I'm saying is that if it is the truth of reality, then it's absurd to hold anyone morally responsible for anything. That's all I'm saying.

How can you be held responsible for what you have evolved to become from millions of years of evolution that you had no say in?

And unless you are a "Free Will Agent" (i.e. can change what you are with total disregard to the deterministic laws of physics and cause and effect) then how can you be held morally responsible for anything?

Ultimately all I'm arguing for here is that if there is no such thing as a "Free Will Agent", then the concept of moral responsibility has no basis.

And that may very well be TRUTH. In fact, I have no problem at all with that being true. If that's the truth of reality it's not a problem. But it is something that we need to recognize and address.

Was the awakening of sentience the line that has been crossed between not being a free will agent to having become a free will agent? Is self-awareness the key element and fundamental definition of Free Will?

i can't answer these questions until you accurately define "free will agent" and "freewill". These terms are as nebulous and vague as "god" and "spiritual".

They are not as nebulous and vague as "god" and "spirit" because I'm not claiming that any such thing as a "free will agent" exists.

All I'm saying it that if you are going to hold anything "morally responsible" then it's you that needs to invent these things as actual entities.

In the meantime these words make perfect scientific sense in a secular materialistic worldview:

Free will - to have a will (or power to decide) that is FREE from laws of physics, or the physical configuration which constitutes your materialistic brain.

This is what we mean by "Free". Free from the deterministic laws of cause and affect. If it's not FREE from the standard deterministic laws of physics, then it's not a "Free Will" but instead it a deterministic will.

I don't see why you have such a problem with these terms. They seem pretty straight-forward to me.

A "Free Will Agent" would be the "Mysterious entity" that is actually capable of making choices that are FREE from the deterministic laws of physics, or the deterministic configuration of the neural net of the brain.

I am not claiming that a Free Will Agent actually exists. I'm merely pointing out the fact that if you want to hold anyone morally responsible then you are the one who is assuming that they are FREE from deterministic physics. You are the one who requires that they are indeed a "Free Will Agent".

That seems a bit controversial. The reason being that you can have two analog computers, neural networks, or biological brains. One of these can have been wired to generate all manner of negative and hostile "thoughts". The other one can have been wired to generate all manner of positive and loving thoughts.

Once again, pure speculation and science fiction. We have no idea what it takes to produce consciousness besides an organic brain.

And that's exactly what I am addressing. No science fiction required.

Assuming the computational theory of the mind is accurate then yes, it MAY be possible to reproduce a human-like mind via a computer. Then again, it may not be because of some technological hurdle or fundamental difference or something else.

If secular materialism is true, then it absolute must be possible because that's necessarily what we are. We don't need to even worry about "the computational theory of mind", because that particular theory may be totally wrong in the details.

But clearly if secular materialism is true, then our brains are without a doubt nothing other than evolved biological machines.

The only way to avoid that would be to move away from secular materialism and be open to some other possible worldview.

Now when you turn both of these brains on they both become sentience (self aware). But one brain keep generating negative and hostile thoughts and decisions, whilst the other brain keeps generating positive and loving thoughts and decisions.

You proceed with even more grandiose assumptions. Not only do you claim that we reproduce minds with computers, but that once we do we can finely tune them to have positive and negative hostile thoughts.

What do you suppose a unicorn's favorite food is?

You are being irrationally hostile in this conversation. I am not proposing anything beyond pure material secularism in our conversations. I've been speaking to you entirely as a secular scientist in all our conversations thus far.

If you are going to hold humans in a purely secular universe morally responsible then it is you that I should be asking, "And what do you suppose a unicorn's favorite food is?" Because you are the one who is demanding that a human must be something more than just the result of a purely mechanistic brain that has evolved solely by the deterministic laws of physics.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to favor a purely secular world view whilst simultaneously holding people morally responsible for their actions. That, my friend, is a totally inconsistent and unsupportable position to take.

You are demanding that humans can be held morally responsible whilst simultaneously confessing that you don't even know how their brains work.

That makes no sense at all.

So how does it make any sense to hold the "Sentience" or "Self Awareness" responsible for the thoughts and decisions it's making when fundamentally it really has no Free Will Choice because it has already been wired at a fundamental level to be innately good or bad.

"free will choice"... what does that mean????

Free from the deterministic laws of physics.

Its logically contradictory to say that someone makes a choice and doesn't have freewill.

No it isn't. Even my simple digital laptop computer make decisions and "choices" based on external inputs all the time. So are you claiming that it has "Free Will"?

I used to program industrial robots, and trust me those robots were making lots of decisions and even "choices" based on the current situations they were in.

But never once did I think of them as having "Free Will".

And it would be absolutely silly to hold them morally responsible for anything.

If we're going to hold sentience, or self-awareness responsible for making decisions we must first eliminate any possibility that it has NO REAL CHOICE in the matter.

So sentient beings can;t make choices now? So when i choose between coke and pepsi, i'm not making a choice? I'm lying when i say i deliberate between the two and choose one?

The question now is, "Are you making choices for any other reasons that the robots that I programmed had made their choices?"

You may think that you have a choice in the matter, but if pure secular materialism is true, that may be entirely an illusion. In fact, it has to be an illusion if pure secular materialism is true.

The only way it could not be true is if some kind of mystical or spiritual philosophy of reality is truth.

You seem to want the best of both worlds. But pure secular materialism does not allow for true free will. If you chose a coke over a pepsi there must have been something in the configuration of your neural net that caused you to make that choice.

That has to be the case if the world truly is nothing more that pure secular materialism. There is nothing else that could be the case.

Simply recognizing that biological brains are indeed nothing more than neural networks (i.e. Analog Computers), then how can science blame the sentience of these computers for how they have been innately fundamentally wired?

I've said this repeatedly: because the sentient beings have intentions and thoughts. And we hold people MORALLY accountable for their actions oftentimes based on their intentions and motivations.

The are only one way i can think of to get around this and that is to argue for moral nihilism. The morality doesn't actually "exist". Good lcuk wiht that. because of morality does "exist" then morally culpability certainly does and ONLY applies to conscious beings.

If pure secular materialism is the truth of realty then morality does not exist. Especially not in any absolute form. All that can exists are subjective ethics.

So if you buy into the idea that "morality actually exists", then you're not on board with a pure secular materialistic worldview.

What can exist is socially subjective ethics. But that's a far cry from "morality".

So I don't see where you have even begun to address the issue at all. Instead you seem to be just "jumping" to the conclusion that if a brain is self-aware then it must also have FREE WILL CHOICE.

Well it depends on what you MEAN by that term you keep repeating without accurately and precisely defining: "free will choice".

Free from the deterministic laws of physics that would be all that exists in a purely secular materialistic world.

Sam Harris would argue that we don't have "freewill". Arguing that "a puppet is only free as long as he loves his strings".

I agree with Sam Harris (at least in terms of a secular worldview). If the world truly is purely materialistic just following the laws of physics, then there can be no such thing as "freewill". I agree with Sam Harris. And I believe that he would agree with what I've been saying in our conversations thus far.

So I consider myself to be in harmony with Sam Harris concerning the nature of a secular worldview. That doesn't necessarily mean that I accept that this is the correct worldview. It may or may not be. But I do agree with Sam Harris concerning this worldview.

Dan Dennet spins this arguing that compatabilist freewill is the only coherent and form of freewill worth having. So both of them actually agree with one another but DISAGREE on terms. Perhaps this is similar to our disagreement. You want "freewill" to be something more than it logically can be.

I'm not sure that I agree that Dan Dennets "Compatabilist Freewill" actually represents free will at all. In fact, the compatabilists argue that a person's reasons, motives, and desires, are involved in their "Free Will" choices. But the problem with that is that a persons reasons, motives, and desires, may already be a result of the hard-wiring of their brain. Therefore to claim that they have "Free Will" because they are basing current choices on current reasons, motive, and desires, looses sight of the fact that the person may not be the slightest bit responsible for having those fundamental reasons, motives, and desire in the first place.

In fact, I hold this up all time in arguments of morality. I have NO DESIRE to sexually molest young children. Did I make a free will choice not to have that desire?

I don't think so. I think I was just lucky enough to have a brain that doesn't automatically think that way. And because of this I must take into consideration the very real possibility that people who do have brains that have that desire may also have that desire through no fault of their own.

And therefore what sense does it make for me to say that they had a free will choice to become a child molester or not? Maybe because of the pure secular materialistic nature of their brain, they never had a choice.

So I'm with Sam Harris on this one. But I'm not prepared to agree with Dan Dennet on this particular issue.

I think it's better to just say that we have no free will as Sam Harris does.

I don't see you can call something "conscious" unless it possesses intentions and motivations. Just like don't see how you can remove all the atoms of a rock and still call it a rock.

I don't deny that we have intentions and motivations. My only concern is that if we truly do live in a purely secular materialistic world, then how can we be held responsible for the intentions and motivations that we do have? We didn't chose to have them. We just have them.

When I was quite young I made a conscious choice to be a "Good Person". This was a quite profound event for me because it was a major decision of how I "intended" to live out the rest of my life.

But what was it that made that choice? Was this just a choice that my neural net happened to make because of it's configuration on that day?

Or can I take "Personal responsibility for having made that choice totally independent of the configuration of my brain on that day?"

This is a very powerful question Scourge, because if I made a choice that was independent of the configuration of my brain on that day then "WHO am I?" that I made a choice that was totally independent of my own brain?

This actually implies that *I* must be something other than my brain. I must be a "Free Will Agent" that is running a brain.

This is of course what many spiritualists and mystic belief.

But I'm not arguing for mysticism here. I'm willing to stick with the purely secular materialistic worldview and discard the idea of any mystical "Free Will Agent". But in that case my decision to life my life as a "good person" was nothing more than a decision that was made by my brain. I had no control over that decision at all really. Because if I'm not a separate "Free Will Agent" then I have no control over my brain, I simply am my brain.

So yes, my brain made what we consider to be a morally acceptable decision. But how could that have been anything more than a pure stroke of LUCK for me?

I certainly couldn't have been telling my brain what to do if I am nothing other than my brain.

Its not like we have a device which can detect consciousness. We determine something is conscious based on how it acts similar to ourselves (we assume others are conscious like we are and aren't philosophical zombies or something else)

Being conscious and having free will are two different things.

But then you are already suggesting a "mysterious soul" of sorts. You are already suggesting that the mere emergence of sentience or self-awareness has itself become a "FREE WILL AGENT" that then has total control over the underlying neural network that gave rise to it.

I have no idea what these sentences even mean.

You certainly should understand what they mean by this point of the conversation.

If sentience and self-awareness are nothing more than an "emergent property" of an underlying neural network (biological analog computer), then surely that sentience and self-awareness is totally dependent upon the configuration of that neural network or brain.

Not necessarily true. The environment, conditions, and state of the brain, to name a fw examples, may play a role.

So what if they do? Those are still all deterministic cause and effect.

Once again, we don't know exactly how the mind manifests from the billions of neurons. But we do know the mind is produced by the brain.

That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether or not a brain produces a sentient experience of awareness, the issue is whether or not that awareness can make choices that are FREE from the brain from which it arose.

So all you are doing is pointing at an emergent property of an analog computer and saying, "Hey I think we should hold that emergent property responsible for whatever the analog computer that gave rise to it does!"

No, i'm saying that
1) morality exists
2) conscious beings are moral agents
3) humans are conscious

I'm not in agreement with your list.

1) morality exists

I absolutely disagree with this. There is no such thing as absolute morality, all that exists is subjective social ethics. Absolute morality is a theistic concept.

2) conscious beings are moral agents

Again, a theistic concept. I disagree that consciousness automatically equates to a moral agent. In fact what do you even mean by "Moral Agent"?

3) humans are conscious

I will agree with number 3, but since I've already rejected 1 and 2 I'm not going to be drawing the same conclusions that you might draw.

You think there is a dilemma because you are implicitly arguing that freewill and determinism are incompatible. If freewill and determinism are compatible (which they are) then there is no dilemma.

I agree, but I don't feel that you have resolved that freewill can be compatible with determinism.

Well i think you need to read up on that matter or present your reasoning why its incompatible. I can't prove its not incompatible except to say that it is compatible..

Well, I'm with Sam Harris on this one.

Free Will means "Free from determinism". Therefore a mind that is not free from determinism cannot be said to have free will. It's pretty straight-forward I think.

No mind can be free from determinism is a purely secular materialist worldview.

I don't even see how you can connect intentions with "deterministic processes". To say so is to say you've figured out how exactly neurons manifst "mind, intentions, desires, and goals".

It's not necessary to know how the brain works in detail. We are working under the hypothesis of a materialistic worldview. Period. So it doesn't matter how the brain works, in a purely secular materialist worldview. The bottom line is that it can be nothing other than a mechanistic machine following the laws of physics.

We know minds like ours have intentions, thoughts, goals desires, etc.

So? All of those intentions, thoughts, goals, and desires can be totally deterministic. In fact in a purely secular materialistic worldview they MUST BE! There is nothing else they can be.

We know our mind is a manifestation of a working brain.

That is the secular materialistic hypothesis. (we actually know know if that's truth) But for the purpose of discussing a secular materialistic world view we can assume this as a premise.

We know brains are bound by purely deterministic processes (physics, chemistry, etc).

Well, there you go. There can be no room for free will (i.e. a will that is FREE from those purely deterministic processes)

You just summed up the secular materialistic worldview right there.

What are intentions, desires, goals, etc, if not the current configuration of the neural network that is the brain?

I don't know. neither do you. If we knew that we'd have a Nobel prize.

Well, that's the secular materialistic worldview.

Are you conceding that we don't know that the secular materialistic worldview is true? I'll certainly accept this.

However, everything I have been discussing thus far was based upon the assumption that the secular materialistic worldview is true.

And this physical configuration had to have been the result of nothing other than the cause and effects of the natural laws of physics with a little bit of randomness sprinkled in.

So where is there anyone to "Hold Responsible" for that?

Because morality exists.
Do you not think morality exists? Are there not wrong and right actions for a conscious being to choose from given a situation?

No I reject the concept of absolute morality. Especially in a secular materialistic worldview. What would be the ultimate judge of morality in a purely secular materialistic world?

All that can exist in a purely secular materialistic world is social subjective ethics.

If I CHOOSE to do an immoral action, doesn't that make me RESPONSIBLE for it? (yes)
If the universe were rewound and circumstances were identical and i chose the same immoral action everytime, does that somehow make it amoral or morally okay? (No.)

Apparently you have a totally separate problem from our discussion here. You're trying to imagine some sort of absolute morality in a purely secular materialistic world. That makes no sense. If reality is nothing more than a purely secular materialistic world, then there can be no such thing as absolute morality. All that can exist is subjective opinionated ethics.

I personally have no problem with this. If the secular materialists are right, then morality is a meaningless concept. But subjective opinionated ethics can exist.

You cannot be the slightness bit responsible for the current configuration of your neural net UNLESS, you are some sort of mysterious mystical or spiritual FREE AGENT that is totally separated from the physical laws of physics to the point where you could make choices unrelated to the current configuration of your neural network or brain.

We aren't separated from the physical laws of nature. Given determinism, we cannot make a different choice than the one we made. No matter how many times the universe is rewound and played. That doesn't mean we are somehow not morally responsible for that choice because we nonetheless MADE the choice.

As far as I'm concerned, if you agree that no matter how many times we rewind the universe and replay it we would make exactly the same choices, then as far as I'm concerned you are in agreement with Sam Harris that there is no such thing as Free Will.

And you are also in agreement with every point I've made since our conversation began.

You want to support the idea of a purely secular materialistic existence that unfolds solely by the laws of physics, whilst simultaneously holding an emergent property of sentience responsible for having shaped its own thoughts and decisions.

There is NOTHING contradictory about having thoughts and making decisions despite them being rooted and bound by determinism.

For example, suppose you are given the choice between coke and Pepsi. You choose coke. If we rewound the universe and everything was identical (no randomness either) then you would make the same decision EVERY SINGLE TIME. You CAN'T CHOOSE otherwise because your choice is deterministic. But you still had the SENSATION of choice. You still deliberated. You still made a choice in your head and acted upon it. That is freewill. You make choices but your choice cannot have been otherwise because of determinism. Sam Harris doesn't think that should be called "freewill". Dan Dennet disagrees saying its the only form of "freewill" worth having.

I agree with Sam Harris.

It would seem to me that even the emergent property of "self awareness" would be just as deterministic as anything else. From whence would it obtain "Free Will"?

The ability to choose is an exercise of freewill. That your choice cannot have been otherwise does not make it any less your intentional and deliberate choice.

What would it mean to choose differently than what you did? If the universe was rewound and circumstances identical and you somehow chose differently, what would account for that? Magic?

Yes! Something other than a pure secular materialistic world would be required to account for that! Absolutely!

But that's not what we are discussing here. I'm not saying that we have Free Will.

I'm not arguing for a mystical universe in this thread.

All I'm saying is that in a purely secular materialistic world we would NOT have free will, and therefore holding us responsible for moral decisions would be irrational.

And YES, I do hold that if you want to claim that we have Free Will, you're going to need to consider something other than a purely secular materialistic world.

Absolutely.

I have no problem either way. I'm open to either reality. All I ask is that we be consistent in the realities that we choose to entertain.

If you're going to embrace a pure secular materialistic reality, then to be consistent with that you can't go around holding people morally responsible for their actions. Those two things are incompatible.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 425 by Divine Insight]

A free will incompatible with determinism is a principle of choice rooted in true randomness.

If you think we can't hold people responsible for their choices without free will, what makes you think we can with it? Incompatibilist free will is qualitatively the same as randomness. Why hold someone accountable for what the dice in their head rolls?

On the other hand, compatibilist free will is merely a recognition of the fact that choice exists as a subjective perception, similar to possibility. Similarly, free will exists, it just refers to a shared concept that only exists subjectively. "I chose to write this post" and "I had no choice but to write this post" can be compatible provided the context is not the same (there must be some difference to maintain inequality).

I don't see how determinism remotely affects moral accountability at all.
The most immediate response I can give is that under a deterministic Universe, we still can't predict the future and so we act as we would under an indeterministic Universe anyway. If it's more of a "the result will be the same regardless", then this is no more a reason for no morality than it is for morality.

The morality of holding people accountable is all about rehabilitation; changing their behavioural patterns; not about retribution. "Why blame them?" is already the wrong question - it makes sense given context, but fundamentally morality is not about finding who to blame. That is merely a pragmatic solution; a question of ethics.


I completely disagree with scourge99 that there causality and morality may be tied together let alone that causality is necessary for morality.
For instance; I take it you believe that a culprit of accidental homicide is less accountable than one of a failed murder attempt. Yet the former is 'causally responsible' while the latter is not.
The important thing is what they intended to occur, not what occurred as a result.