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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #148]

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 has a cause so cannot be non-deterministic.

Free will is just the ability to make decisions and choose certain actions over others. Having a "thought" is also a nonmaterial thing ... a perception created by the brain. There's no reason to believe that a thought is not the result of neurons firing, memory recall, and electrical and chemical signals running around in the brain to create it. Same for the ability to weigh multiple factors to arrive at a decision (ie. free will).

Postulating "something else" that can't be shown to actually exist has no basis. It is no different than postulating a god as the creator of everything because we don't yet know the mechanisms for origin of life, or origin of the universe. Whenever there is an open problem in science, someone will always jump in with a supernatural explanation.

The crux of your argument is the false premise that no combination of deterministic events within the working brain can lead to emergent properties such as the ability to think and make decisions. These are whole-system functions that don't exist within the individual deterministic behavior of the components, but do exist with them working together as a system. In no way is this impossible, or a contradiction, or a violation of the laws of nature.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... n-physical

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #148]

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 has a cause so cannot be non-deterministic.

Free will is just the ability to make decisions and choose certain actions over others. Having a "thought" is also a nonmaterial thing ... a perception created by the brain. There's no reason to believe that a thought is not the result of neurons firing, memory recall, and electrical and chemical signals running around in the brain to create it. Same for the ability to weigh multiple factors to arrive at a decision (ie. free will).

Postulating "something else" that can't be shown to actually exist has no basis. It is no different than postulating a god as the creator of everything because we don't yet know the mechanisms for origin of life, or origin of the universe. Whenever there is an open problem in science, someone will always jump in with a supernatural explanation.

The crux of your argument is the false premise that no combination of deterministic events within the working brain can lead to emergent properties such as the ability to think and make decisions. These are whole-system functions that don't exist within the individual deterministic behavior of the components, but do exist with them working together as a system. In no way is this impossible, or a contradiction, or a violation of the laws of nature.

Emergent properties are real, they do exist and I am very familiar with them, I do not and have not said otherwise, Conway's game of life is a great example and there are others from the realms of artificial life and chaos theory.

Nevertheless something that emerges is by definition caused, it is deterministic, we can always make it emerge if we do this or that, emergent properties don't appear because matter made some "decisions" they appear because they are caused to appear by laws. Conway's game of life will always proceed identically when started from the same start state no matter how complex that initial state might be.

Deterministic systems do not and cannot have "free will" their behavior is always dictated by their state and any preceding events, what they do, how they behave is based on laws, cause and effect, there is no basis for "decisions" in determinism, nothing in physics for example shows that the universe makes decisions. Balls don't decide to fall, bullets don't decide to fire, wood does not decide to burn when we apply a flame. No, deterministic systems always behave according to laws and nothing else, science itself is predicated on determinism and is useless when discussing non-determinism.

Now a question for you, what exactly do you mean by "decision" can you show any examples from nature of anything that "decides" how to behave and is not just the result of laws? We've ruled out balls and bullets...

[Inquirer]

Here's a relevant article in today's Guardian newspaper:

The big idea: are we responsible for the things we do wrong?.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #145]

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.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"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."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #146]

If you can prove that I don't have free will then yes, I'll agree with you;

This is clearly a case when neither side can prove in a conclusive way, that we do or do not have free will.

Both arguments must therefore, fail.

You have yet to answer my question;

Q: "Can a being who knows everything, [omniscient] actually have free will?"

Do you know the answer?

If I had the ability to know everything about this universe, then I would see that this universe is a deterministic system.

Therefore I can conclude that - while the universe is a deterministic system my lack of knowledge about it allows for me to think I have free will...it would appear "self evident" to me that I have free will.

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 #152]

No, deterministic systems always behave according to laws and nothing else, science itself is predicated on determinism and is useless when discussing non-determinism.

OK, then our ability to make decisions is deteministic at the molecular level, but the number of inputs and outputs (neurons involved, synapses firing, etc.) that create a given outsome is so large and their interactions so complicated it appears to be non-deterministic, but really isn't. That's just as good of an explanation as "something else."

It is a fact that humans can make decisions as long as their brain is working, and the mechanistic details of how this happens (addressed a little in the article I linked ... and there are many like this) is not fully understood. But that doesn't mean the default answer is something else beyond a materialistic explanation. although that conveniently "explains" everything we don't fully understand ... not just decision making ability or thoughts.

Now a question for you, what exactly do you mean by "decision" can you show any examples from nature of anything that "decides" how to behave and is not just the result of laws? We've ruled out balls and bullets...

Yes ... any animal with a working brain. Bullets and balls don't have brains.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #156]

OK, then our ability to make decisions is deteministic at the molecular level, but the number of inputs and outputs (neurons involved, synapses firing, etc.) that create a given outsome is so large and their interactions so complicated it appears to be non-deterministic, but really isn't. That's just as good of an explanation as "something else."

More to the point, it is a most logical explanation. We exist within a determined reality which just so happens to allow for us within it to see it as appearing to be non-deterministic.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #146]

If you can prove that I don't have free will then yes, I'll agree with you;

This is clearly a case when neither side can prove in a conclusive way, that we do or do not have free will.

Both arguments must therefore, fail.

You have yet to answer my question;

Q: "Can a being who knows everything, [omniscient] actually have free will?"

Do you know the answer?

I don't know, the answer likely depends on the precise definition of terms.

If I had the ability to know everything about this universe, then I would see that this universe is a deterministic system.

Therefore I can conclude that - while the universe is a deterministic system my lack of knowledge about it allows for me to think I have free will...it would appear "self evident" to me that I have free will.

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.

I agree that simply making a statement does not make it true, but that's not what I argued at all. I said it was self evident that I have free will, just as it is self evident I have existence. I do not doubt these assertions because there are others who question the truth of them.

Do you exist? do you have awareness? are these self evident or do you really need to rely on others to confirm these claims for you?

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.

I define free will as an ability to effect change without that change being deterministically driven. I regard it as fundamental, the basis for determinism, it is a fundamental quality more fundamental than space, time, matter or laws, it is the basis for these things not something arising from them.

If you disagree then you face a problem, to what cause can we attribute causality? determinism? What caused determinism to exist? what caused laws to exist?

There are two answers

1. They are consequence of determinism - thus a circular argument, a fallacious argument (things caused themselves and other kinds of nonsense)
2. They are consequences of will. Will - God's will - caused causality, laws, determinism to exist.

To those steeped in scientism 2. must be rejected because 1. is a dogmatic truth that can never be questioned, but 1. is a self contradictory belief that leads nowhere.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #145]

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.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"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."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

What I find silly is the ability of anything, god included, to create itself.

Hebrews 11:3 says the universe was created by god, and Inquirer wrote: "God is the universe" which implies the universe and god are one in the same thing, meaning "god created god," which I find a bit silly. Don't you?

.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #152]

No, deterministic systems always behave according to laws and nothing else, science itself is predicated on determinism and is useless when discussing non-determinism.

OK, then our ability to make decisions is deteministic at the molecular level, but the number of inputs and outputs (neurons involved, synapses firing, etc.) that create a given outsome is so large and their interactions so complicated it appears to be non-deterministic, but really isn't. That's just as good of an explanation as "something else."

Fine, so we are entirely deterministic BUT as soon as we adopt that position we must abandon any claims that good or bad exist in anything other than a purely relative sense, hence science provides no basis for morality, torture is neither bad nor good, rape is neither bad nor good, these are all entirely nothing more than inevitable consequences of a deterministic, cold, uncaring universe.

It is a fact that humans can make decisions as long as their brain is working, and the mechanistic details of how this happens (addressed a little in the article I linked ... and there are many like this) is not fully understood. But that doesn't mean the default answer is something else beyond a materialistic explanation. although that conveniently "explains" everything we don't fully understand ... not just decision making ability or thoughts.

Now a question for you, what exactly do you mean by "decision" can you show any examples from nature of anything that "decides" how to behave and is not just the result of laws? We've ruled out balls and bullets...

Yes ... any animal with a working brain. Bullets and balls don't have brains.

You're not being clear, please tell me, what is the difference between a deterministic system that cannot make decisions and one that can? There must be a difference surely?