Machines and morality

[Inquirer]

Given that humans are believed to be mechanisms (albeit of great complexity) on what basis can we say that murder or torture is wrong? Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is? Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.

[Inquirer]

Once again if all the parts use to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic.

Exactly what is that definition? Source please, or demonstrate the truth of it.

There are various definitions of "determinism" (and its antonym) this is the one I'm using, so interpret my posts with this definition in mind:

Determinism often is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #100]

I think the point on which we disagree is that you regard the existence of brains (with free will, hence non-determinism) as proof that non-determinism can emerge from determinism. I regard it as evidence that some other phenomenon is at play, something not open to scientific investigation (because non-determinism, absence of causes for events cannot be explained scientifically).

Yes ... it is observed that humans are made of molecules that individually cannot do anything but follow the laws of chemistry and physics, but they have brains which govern their behavior (including free will) that is often non-deterministic.

Very well.

These are direct observations.

Well actually they're inferences, we cannot observe free will, we infer it. But as you might know there's experimental evidence from brain research that suggests we don't have free will at all, so bear that in mind.

Explaining how the brain does what it does is the issue, and my view is that its functions result from complicated interactions between all of its constituent deterministic parts (neurons, electrical signals, chemical signals, etc.). It is this complex set of interactions that create the ability to "think", to be conscious, to have free will, etc. These are manifestations of the working brain ... ie. emergent properties.

Calling a phenomenon an "emergent property" does not make it so, it is a hypothesis at this stage. I find the suggestion that deterministic components can lead to non-deterministic behavior untenable. If all of the parts adhere to laws then how can an agglomeration of them violate those laws? You need to explain that. That's what non-determinism means - not governed by laws - it is precisely because components are governed by laws that we can build reliable systems be they ships, aircraft, moon landings, computer etc.

Your argument is that this is impossible because it is not possible for a combination of deterministic components to ever produce a system that has non-deteministic properties. That is, you don't accept that the physical components of a working brain can produce emergent properties of any kind. I don't agree with this because I don't see any other explanation that does not involve magic or the supernatural, which I believe does not exist in any form (now or in the past), so there must be a materialistic, scientific explanation at the root of it all that we simply have not worked out yet.

It is your suggestion that should be called "magic" that matter is strictly governed by tried and tested laws of nature except when it isn't. It is self contradictory to posit a "scientific explanation" for non-determinism because such an explanation means there are laws yet non-determinism is the absence of laws. If there are no laws then there can be no scientific explanation, no theory.

The problem I see with your position is that you need matter to be governed by laws of nature and at the same time not be governed by laws of nature, how can one have law that there are no laws?

I don't need any violations of natural laws ... just the idea that the whole can be more than the sum of its parts (ie. there can exist emergent properties of the brain created entirely by the interactions of the components of the brain). I see no reason to discard this possibility just because we can't yet write down every mechanistic detail.

Yes we can see emergent behavior in systems, I do not dispute that but emergent non-determinism is a very different thing. Emergent behaviors are governed by laws, non-determinism is the absence of laws. Even chaos is not non-determinism, chaotic systems might appear unpredictable sometimes but that isn't strictly true. They are systems whose long term behavior is extremely sensitive to initial conditions but these are governed by laws nevertheless.

My current opinion on all this is that free will does not emerge from laws, but rather laws emerge from free will. Will is the most fundamental of things, everything is the result of will. This is compatible with what the Bible says for example, how the universe and the creation are attributable to God's will. Therefore the presence of law is evidence of will, the existence of laws cannot be attributed to laws - that's circular reasoning. Like so many other things in our universe, the laws of nature were designed and to design anything is to use one's will, without will we can do nothing.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

If all of the parts adhere to laws then how can an agglomeration of them violate those laws? You need to explain that.

The agglomeration of them do NOT violate those laws. They create functions beyond those of the individual components, while not breaking any laws. Again, you can't seem to accept that the whole can be more than the sum of its parts. Emergent property is just a term used to describe this phenomenon in biology (it is not a hypothesis by itself). Here is a useful article:

https://www.britannica.com/science/syst ... ref1218077

The second section says this:

"Many of the most-critical aspects of how a cell works result from the collective behaviour of many molecular parts, all acting together. Those collective properties—often called “emergent properties”—are critical attributes of biological systems, as understanding the individual parts alone is insufficient to understand or predict system behaviour. Thus, emergent properties necessarily come from the interactions of the parts of the larger system. As an example, a memory that is stored in the human brain is an emergent property because it cannot be understood as a property of a single neuron or even many neurons considered one at a time. Rather, it is a collective property of a large number of neurons acting together."

It is your suggestion that should be called "magic" that matter is strictly governed by tried and tested laws of nature except when it isn't.

No ... that's not at all what I'm claiming. You continue to simply declare that emergent properties are not possible, and offer up for justification the false claim that no collection of deterministic components can ever combine to form a system that can exhibit non-deterministic behavior. That is wrong. If it were not wrong then we could not have brains which do exactly that. Your position requires some sort of magic or supernatural input (or something nonmaterialistic) for a working brain to exist, because you've declared it could not exist otherwise.

My current opinion on all this is that free will does not emerge from laws, but rather laws emerge from free will. Will is the most fundamental of things, everything is the result of will. This is compatible with what the Bible says for example, how the universe and the creation are attributable to God's will.

So it is indeed god magic at the end of the day.

[brunumb]

Once again if all the parts use to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic.

Exactly what is that definition? Source please, or demonstrate the truth of it.

There are various definitions of "determinism" (and its antonym) this is the one I'm using, so interpret my posts with this definition in mind:

Determinism often is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

That doesn't address the bit I highlighted in red.

[Inquirer]

Once again if all the parts use to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic.

Exactly what is that definition? Source please, or demonstrate the truth of it.

There are various definitions of "determinism" (and its antonym) this is the one I'm using, so interpret my posts with this definition in mind:

Determinism often is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

That doesn't address the bit I highlighted in red.

Clearly I am disputing the claim that a machine can violate the laws of physics even though it's made entirely from components that obey the laws of physics.

The definition is best exemplified by the conservation laws, please feel free to argue against conservation laws but if you do, you've abandoned any pretense of science.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

If all of the parts adhere to laws then how can an agglomeration of them violate those laws? You need to explain that.

The agglomeration of them do NOT violate those laws. They create functions beyond those of the individual components, while not breaking any laws. Again, you can't seem to accept that the whole can be more than the sum of its parts. Emergent property is just a term used to describe this phenomenon in biology (it is not a hypothesis by itself). Here is a useful article:

https://www.britannica.com/science/syst ... ref1218077

The second section says this:

"Many of the most-critical aspects of how a cell works result from the collective behaviour of many molecular parts, all acting together. Those collective properties—often called “emergent properties”—are critical attributes of biological systems, as understanding the individual parts alone is insufficient to understand or predict system behaviour. Thus, emergent properties necessarily come from the interactions of the parts of the larger system. As an example, a memory that is stored in the human brain is an emergent property because it cannot be understood as a property of a single neuron or even many neurons considered one at a time. Rather, it is a collective property of a large number of neurons acting together."

It is your suggestion that should be called "magic" that matter is strictly governed by tried and tested laws of nature except when it isn't.

No ... that's not at all what I'm claiming. You continue to simply declare that emergent properties are not possible, and offer up for justification the false claim that no collection of deterministic components can ever combine to form a system that can exhibit non-deterministic behavior. That is wrong. If it were not wrong then we could not have brains which do exactly that. Your position requires some sort of magic or supernatural input (or something nonmaterialistic) for a working brain to exist, because you've declared it could not exist otherwise.

My current opinion on all this is that free will does not emerge from laws, but rather laws emerge from free will. Will is the most fundamental of things, everything is the result of will. This is compatible with what the Bible says for example, how the universe and the creation are attributable to God's will.

So it is indeed god magic at the end of the day.

You don't seem to appreciate that non-determinism is the absence of laws, the absence of cause and effect. Emergent behavior is real, I accept that, but what I cannot let you get away with, is the insinuation that non-deterministic behavior can emerge. Emergent behavior is always deterministic, caused; after all if we can cause it to emerge it can't be uncaused (non-deterministic) can it.

Frankly your argument is illogical, if you refuse to admit that then we'll just have to leave it at that I guess.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #116]

Emergent behavior is always deterministic, caused; after all if we can cause it to emerge it can't be uncaused (non-deterministic) can it.

I've never said that emergent behavior isn't caused. Anythng the brain produces as an emergent property is obviously caused by the actions of its many components, even if we can't yet write down the specific mechanisms at a molecular level. Again, the brain system working as a unit can create emergent properties beyond what the individual components are capable of (the fundamental point I've been making all along).

If you want to define consciusness, free will, etc. as non-deterministic that's fine, but this does not mean uncaused. It just means the behavior can't be predicted (determined) by piecing together a series of deterministic events. If we understood the workings of the brain far better than we do today, maybe these things could be predictable and deterministic. But they are clearly caused in the sense of being manifestations of the operation of the brain system.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the fact that we don't understand the inner workings of the brain fully, therefore consciousness and free will must be "caused" by something external to the brain (ignoring any possibility that we may figure things out eventually). What is that external "thing", and why should anyone believe it exists and is a valid explanation for consciousness and free will? What evidence is there for it (besides faulty logic designed to force that conclusion without any empirical evidence).

[JoeyKnothead]

Alright then. We're all just a bunch of machines who must act according to the laws of physics, and no amount of fussing's gonna fix that.

How come God hates homosexuals for doing what it is, physics says they can't help but to do?

Is God just physics, and some folks can't help but just to hate the homosexuals?

How bout opinions? Is how we think about, and treat our fellow humans just physics? Can't change hate?
Can't fix hate?

"I hate cause, well, it's what I was born to do."

Is that it?

If humans can have such differences of opinions, that's pretty sound indication we ain't us just bound to physics. We ain't just machines, bound to love or hate out of how our atoms met up.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #116]

Emergent behavior is always deterministic, caused; after all if we can cause it to emerge it can't be uncaused (non-deterministic) can it.

I've never said that emergent behavior isn't caused. Anythng the brain produces as an emergent property is obviously caused by the actions of its many components, even if we can't yet write down the specific mechanisms at a molecular level. Again, the brain system working as a unit can create emergent properties beyond what the individual components are capable of (the fundamental point I've been making all along).

If you want to define consciusness, free will, etc. as non-deterministic that's fine, but this does not mean uncaused.

It does mean uncaused when I write, because this is the definition I'm using:

Determinism often is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

It just means the behavior can't be predicted (determined) by piecing together a series of deterministic events. If we understood the workings of the brain far better than we do today, maybe these things could be predictable and deterministic. But they are clearly caused in the sense of being manifestations of the operation of the brain system.

In which case you are affirming that free will does not exist. Additionally non-deterministic does not mean the same as unpredictable. Non-deterministic implies unpredictable but unpredictable does not imply non-deterministic. Look at the definition I showed you please.

In science we believe, assume, that everything is caused and we develop theories that describe the nature of the causal relationship. Science cannot study things that have no cause because uncaused events can never be explained, falsification is not possible, without falsification we have no science.

If we do have free will (and I do) then clearly science can never explain free will because there is no material cause -> effect for it.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the fact that we don't understand the inner workings of the brain fully, therefore consciousness and free will must be "caused" by something external to the brain (ignoring any possibility that we may figure things out eventually). What is that external "thing", and why should anyone believe it exists and is a valid explanation for consciousness and free will? What evidence is there for it (besides faulty logic designed to force that conclusion without any empirical evidence).

I politely suggest you review your own reasoning here, it is becoming self contradictory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #119]

If we do have free will (and I do) then clearly science can never explain free will because there is no material cause -> effect for it.

So you keep saying, as if this (no material cause) were a fact. But that has never been demonstrated to be the case. Free will (the ability to make decisions and choices) may well have a material cause (ie. is a manifestation of a working brain ... an emergent propertiy) that we just have not elucidated the full physical mechanisms for.

All you're doing is declaring, without basis, that there can be no such material cause. My argument is not contradictory ... it is simply that our lack of ability, currently, to describe the mechanistic details does not rule out their existence. You are ruling out their existence via faulty arguments and declaractions that are framed specifically to arrive at only that conclusion.