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.

[brunumb]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Please demonstrate unequivocally that you have free will. How can you tell?

It's self evident to me

It's self evident to me that you cannot support your claim. Your argument fails because you cannot demonstrate free will.

[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.

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.

You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. You merely made an unsupported claim that if all the parts used to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic. Now it is upon you to support that claim.

This is akin to asking me to "support the claim" that the moon would fall if it's orbital speed were to drop. It is called the argument by extension Brunumb or inductive reasoning, the backbone of science. I just can't believe you've never heard of this and feel that such a claim must be "demonstrated" for it to be true.

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.

Please explain the relevance of the conservation laws in this, or even how the definition has anything to do with them. Was that merely thrown in as a distraction or just some pretense of science on your part?

Alright if you really need me to do that. If a system is observed that does not obey the laws of physics then something is not being conserved. This could be energy, mass, angular momentum, and so on. You cannot have a system that violates some law of physics yet does not violate any conservation laws, because if all the conservation laws are obeyed then the system is not in violation of any laws of physics. Adhering to the laws of physics is equivalent to saying none of the invariants are changed, no symmetry is broken.

Your initial claim* is not demonstrably true so all else is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

* You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. Just more unsupported claims and irrelevancies.

[William]

I have said this before, and now say the same things, using other words;

Saying "I have my keys" might be evidence to ones 'self' and anyone witnessing the event can substantiate that statement as "true"

However. when one states that "free will" is being "evident to one's self", does not make the statement true.

For starters, "free will" has not been properly identified and agreed upon as being an actual thing. The concept may be a misunderstood thing.

One cannot simply hold the idea of free will in ones fingers and wave it around proclaiming "See! It is evident to me that I have free will!" as to do so, does not amount to proving so.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #130]

You are arguing that our physical make up and the laws of physics are sufficient to exhibit free will and that the fact we have free will proves your case but that's fatally flawed reasoning. Something else must be involved because if there is laws of physics and matter/energy and nothing else, there can never be non-determinism because laws mean determinism.

What is this "something else" if not the emergent properties of the brain (working as a system) that include the ability to think and make decisions? It is such a simple explanation that makes sense.

In a deterministic system everything that happens is an inevitable consequence of what happened before, there can be no "decisions" no "choices" the laws are the laws and must be obeyed.

Fine ... the laws are obeyed at the molecular level, but the integrated brain working as a system (to beat this dead horse yet again) has functions far beyond what the individual components of the brain have themselves. This is the fundamental point I am making, and the ability to think and make decisions as emergent properties follows. It is a result of the brain system working according to the laws of chemistry and physics, in sufficiently complex ways to enable these functions,. No need to speculate a supernatural "something else."

[Miles]

The Bible in many many places speaks of God's "will" as the thing that acts, that can act, God can do as he pleases - literally meaning God has free will.

The biblical GOD [God/YHWH] is one of position. Just because the bible speaks of a God that acts does not literally mean he does as he pleases or has free will.

What the position means is that he can act in a far more impressive manner than those in lesser position are able to.

But no, there can be no "act" without free will.

Sure there can. Do you suppose your heart pumps blood because you will it to? Of course not. Do you suppose your nose smells vinegar because you will it to? Of course not. Do you suppose your hand picks up a set of keys because you will it to? Of course not.

The beating of the heart and the awareness of vinegar are not what I regard as acts, actions, they are better referred to as events.

A distinction without a difference.

But the set of keys, yes my hand pick up the keys precisely because I will it to. The first two are events and have a causal origin, the last one an act of will.

And exactly what is it that the makes the will act as it does? Why didn't you will not to pick up the keys?

Without free will then God can do nothing other than do what the laws dictate and system that does nothing more than adhere to laws can never be an "I" or a "he".

BINGO!! God can do none of those things without being forced by antecedent causes.

Why do you make that claim?

Because I believe it to be true. If an event has no cause then it must arrive utterly at random. It could not happen just as equally as happen.

It would not be God doing things it would be the laws that govern God's behavior.

And that's exactly how god operates; by conforming to the antecedent states of affairs that precede all acts ."

That's not God then.

And that's fine with me, as long as you don't claim god has free will.

To be able to act in a 'far more impressive manner' does not itself provide the evidence that the one acting, is doing so from a fundamental position of free will - of having free will.

One has to operate within the parameters of the system one is operating in.

Unless one is that system.

Errr. Exactly how would that work? How would one be that system?

God is the universe, the creation is a manifestation of God's will and power, it exists because God wants it to exist.

Claims of pantheism don't impress. For one thing, where the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3) it amounts to saying "god created god," which I find a bit silly.

Remember the biblical story of the flood? We do not need to believe it is a true story or not to understand that the GOD can do as he pleases, even that he is not pleased to have to be doing it.

Therefore, being able to act as one pleases - subject to the set laws of the system one is acting within - does not mean that this is evidence of free will in action.

Yes but what is the origin of determinism?

It's simply how the universe and everything in it works, and from its very inception: A causes B.

So what caused the first event?

Don't know. But just because I don't know am I given the right to claim X did it.

if everything is cause and effect then what cause led to determinism existing and what caused that cause?

Well, at present no one knows how the first cause came into being, if there was one, but just because we don't know, and perhaps never will, doesn't mean we can concoct and present any answer as truth simply because it puts a period on the question. And believe me Free Will is certainly not any kind of such a truth.

There cannot be a first cause if the universe is deterministic, every event must be preceded by some other, so if you admit to a chronological first uncaused cause you are admitting that the universe is not deterministic.

How do you know? I submit that you don't. Perhaps every event in the universe is deterministic EXCEPT the very first one. This is no more unrealistic than proposing an act of a supernatural deity was the cause. Personally, I prefer to admit I just don't know.

The only escape from circular arguments that lead nowhere is to posit that in the beginning was God, will, free will, a cause that is itself uncaused, everything else is then easily explained with no circularity or contradictions, this is the most rational way to view the universe IMHO.

Then perhaps it isn't a valid circular argument at all!! Perhaps your "circular argument" is a fool's argument because it assumes to be true something that has never been shown to exist. You are aware, are you not, that unlike determinism, which we see in operation everyday, free will is a concocted operation that exists only in the imagination of needy minds.

I have free will, it is a self evidently true statement.

And I contend that your self-evident truth is merely an illusion created by your need to keep all your ducks in a row.

I have no need to prove the truth of the claim any more than I have a need to prove the claim "I exist".

Fine. Then there's no reason to continue the discussion.

Have a good day.


.

[Inquirer]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Please demonstrate unequivocally that you have free will. How can you tell?

It's self evident to me

It's self evident to me that you cannot support your claim. Your argument fails because you cannot demonstrate free will.

No, the argument fails if and only if there is a logical error or one of my premises is false. If you can prove that I don't have free will then yes, I'll agree with you; in this case it is your argument that fails.

[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.

You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. You merely made an unsupported claim that if all the parts used to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic. Now it is upon you to support that claim.

This is akin to asking me to "support the claim" that the moon would fall if it's orbital speed were to drop. It is called the argument by extension Brunumb or inductive reasoning, the backbone of science. I just can't believe you've never heard of this and feel that such a claim must be "demonstrated" for it to be true.

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.

Please explain the relevance of the conservation laws in this, or even how the definition has anything to do with them. Was that merely thrown in as a distraction or just some pretense of science on your part?

Alright if you really need me to do that. If a system is observed that does not obey the laws of physics then something is not being conserved. This could be energy, mass, angular momentum, and so on. You cannot have a system that violates some law of physics yet does not violate any conservation laws, because if all the conservation laws are obeyed then the system is not in violation of any laws of physics. Adhering to the laws of physics is equivalent to saying none of the invariants are changed, no symmetry is broken.

Your initial claim* is not demonstrably true so all else is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

* You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. Just more unsupported claims and irrelevancies.

I will do as you suggest if you demonstrate that the moon having its orbital speed reduced to zero, would fall to earth, when you're ready to "demonstrate" that come back to us.

I tried to explain to you already that my argument is a typical inductive argument, if I drop a ball it falls, if I drop a ball it falls, if I drop a ball tomorrow I predict it will fall, if you're unfamiliar with scientific induction this will be of help:

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1] It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #130]

You are arguing that our physical make up and the laws of physics are sufficient to exhibit free will and that the fact we have free will proves your case but that's fatally flawed reasoning. Something else must be involved because if there is laws of physics and matter/energy and nothing else, there can never be non-determinism because laws mean determinism.

What is this "something else" if not the emergent properties of the brain (working as a system) that include the ability to think and make decisions? It is such a simple explanation that makes sense.

The "something else" is "free will" something tangible yet not material or bound by material laws, I've explained this several times already. Emergent properties emerge because they are caused to emerge, free will has no cause so cannot ever emerge, cannot be caused.

If a brain always exhibits emergent properties then obviously those properties are caused by the structure of the brain and free will cannot be caused else it would not be free, there's no escape, free will is not a property of matter, emergent or otherwise.

In a deterministic system everything that happens is an inevitable consequence of what happened before, there can be no "decisions" no "choices" the laws are the laws and must be obeyed.

Fine ... the laws are obeyed at the molecular level, but the integrated brain working as a system (to beat this dead horse yet again) has functions far beyond what the individual components of the brain have themselves. This is the fundamental point I am making, and the ability to think and make decisions as emergent properties follows. It is a result of the brain system working according to the laws of chemistry and physics, in sufficiently complex ways to enable these functions,. No need to speculate a supernatural "something else."

Well I could only agree with you if you were not calling these emergent properties "free will". Computers can exhibit astonishingly sophisticated behavior, even emergent behavior. I work with software daily and so I understand and appreciate that. But I do not regard this is evidence of free will.

You cannot - logically - refer to a caused behavior (which is what an "emergent" behavior is) as free will, uncaused, it is a contradiction.

No, if free will does truly exist then it cannot be some emergent property of matter that manifests under conditions of sufficient complexity, such behavior would have a cause so cannot be non-deterministic.

[Clownboat]

The "something else" is "free will" something tangible yet not material or bound by material laws, I've explained this several times already. Emergent properties emerge because they are caused to emerge, free will has no cause so cannot ever emerge, cannot be caused.

Free will would have a cause if it is an emergent property of a working brain.

What are some other things (outside the brain/mind) that are tangible, yet not material or bound by material laws?
Seems like you are offering up something that doesn't exist as an explanation to leave room for something else that doesn't exist.

Did you know that at one time, the gods caused thunder, lightning and earthquakes? As we learn how the world works, god explanations are no longer needed. Perhaps we will be around to understand free will better. If so, history suggests that god explanations will found to be false explanation.

[Inquirer]

The "something else" is "free will" something tangible yet not material or bound by material laws, I've explained this several times already. Emergent properties emerge because they are caused to emerge, free will has no cause so cannot ever emerge, cannot be caused.

Free will would have a cause if it is an emergent property of a working brain.

Anything that arises from a cause is deterministic, free will is not deterministic though.

What are some other things (outside the brain/mind) that are tangible, yet not material or bound by material laws?

Those laws themselves, determinism itself, these things cannot be explained through prior causes, through other laws else we just get infinite regress and that should tell us we have a bad explanation, that our thinking, our assumptions are wrong, time to develop a new explanation...

Seems like you are offering up something that doesn't exist as an explanation to leave room for something else that doesn't exist.

Did you know that at one time, the gods caused thunder, lightning and earthquakes? As we learn how the world works, god explanations are no longer needed. Perhaps we will be around to understand free will better. If so, history suggests that god explanations will found to be false explanation.

We haven't learned "how the world works" until we can understand the reason for the world existing, explaining how an already existing, already deterministic system with all its fancy laws and mathematics, behaves (it behaves deterministically) doesn't explain how it came to exist. I don't think we can invoke determinism as the cause of determinism.

Many of these epistemological problems only exist because one insists on materialism as the worldview, as soon as we abandon that and invoke free will, God's will, uncaused yet able to cause, then and only then do these problems vanish and if they vanish then we have found a better explanation and only one's prejudices can prevent that explanation being accepted. As the saying goes, one can lead a horse to water...