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.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #165]

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Which is a common option among cosmologists.

Do you mean that it is the preferred belief of cosmologists, when it come to options?

No. I mean it's one of several possibilities they keep in mind.


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #166]

What I am disputing is this claim that a mechanism made from purely deterministic parts can "develop" some ability to stop behaving deterministically. There's nothing in physics or the laws of physics to support such a bizarre claim. That the brain/mind seems able to do this does not prove your claim, all it proves is that there must be something other than the material parts.

It doesn't need to "stop behaving deterministically." It just needs to carry out functions at a high level that appear to be non-deterministic because of their complexity and our lack of understanding of the exact mechanisms at the molecular level. Nothing "bizarre" about that, and it is perfectly compatible with physics and the laws of physics.

If we thoroughly understood the brain at the molecular level we should be able to describe all of the components, signals and pathways involved in thoughts and decision making, etc., and have a fully materialistic explanation. This is only contradictory to your own insistence in describing decision making ability as non-deterministic at all levels, which then allows a claim that it "must" involve some sort of supernatural agent or force or "something else."

[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.

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Which is a common option among cosmologists.

Some cosmologists lean that way, but as soon as we do that (one doesn't need to be a cosmologist either) we are admitting that there is no causal explanation for the universe

Leaning toward something doesn't mean one admits to anything, except just that, leaning.

and since all scientific explanations are causal there is not scientific explanation for the presence of the universe.

Possibly, but so what? Do you expect humanity to eventually have an answer for everything?

So the ultimate conclusion of science is that science can't explain anything. Isn't that odd! using science to explain that science can't explain things!

Apart from its silliness, if the origin of the universe cannot be explained why can't we explain anything else?


.

[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?

.

Well I never meant to imply that the creation and the creator were the same thing. I meant that the universe is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God, that there can be no universe unless created by God, it is inseparable from God in that sense. The universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God and could never exist without God.

Then show your evidence.

Show your evidence that the universe is a manifestation of God

Show your evidence that the universe is an aspect of God

Show your evidence that there can be no universe unless created by God

Show your evidence that the universe is inseparable from God in that sense

Show your evidence that the universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God

Show your evidence that the universe could never exist without God

I ask because mere assertions just doesn't cut it.


.

[brunumb]

If we thoroughly understood the brain at the molecular level we should be able to describe all of the components, signals and pathways involved in thoughts and decision making, etc., and have a fully materialistic explanation. This is only contradictory to your own insistence in describing decision making ability as non-deterministic at all levels, which then allows a claim that it "must" involve some sort of supernatural agent or force or "something else."

I really don't get how that last part (blue) is supposed to work. If our decision making involves free will and is somehow connected to the supernatural, why do we need an old book to tell us what is supposedly moral?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #170]

But why the reticence?

The position I support is more reasonable than Atheism or Theism and thus requires one stands still and contemplates information from the data-stream rather than jumping to conclusions.

You only require a special justification for believing in free will because you've already chosen (no pun intended) to believe everything is deterministic.

On the contrary - I have even given examples for why I think it more likely determinism is the status condition of this experiential reality.
That you have not noticed makes me wonder if your comment is a case of projection...

In other words it is your devotion to the belief that everything is non- deterministic that prevents you from tentatively accepting the idea that you have no free will, and going through the logical steps necessary to test that.

If you accept that there is free will, non-determinism then everything becomes much simpler,

That is demonstrably incorrect. Many Christians accept that there is free will but not necessarily
that there is also non-determinism.
This is because they require these opposing states in order to explain their religion.
This in turn, shows a display of anything other than simplicity.

we can explain human choices as true choices of an "I"

As I already explained, just because I can identify as existing, does not in and of itself mean that I have free will.

we can begin to define morality as being based on choices

The existence of morality is a survival based reaction, and when delegated the authority of the law in favor of the ruling majority, does not account for the supposed free will of others who are in the minority.
Religion [Christian in this instance] requires the notion of free will in order to establish a way in which to control populations through installing an image of GOD into the minds of said populations and dressing the image in the costume of morality that best suits the purposes of the ruling majority who claim their positions as 'of GOD'. [in the name/authority of]

and we can explain determinism as something easily performed by a non-deterministic system simply by it choosing to behave deterministically.

Well - as mentioned, Christians [the 'we' in your statement] can do no such explaining, as such explanations are contrary to their written records and general proclamations.

Why do you think that you skipped over answering the questions I put to you, if not for the fact that to answer them, you would have to contradict the statements you are currently making.

Probably, you don't think that at all - at least not consciously - but 'in the back of your mind' [subconsciously] there they be, waiting for the day you choose to come clean. [no pun intended].

Really, free will, as a fundamental agency in the universe explains so many things that are otherwise inexplicable without jumping through hoops and getting all self contradictory,

No. Not 'really' at all. You just think it is, through your theist bias. That is why the questions I mentioned remain unanswered. They are filtered out by the bias.

why are you fighting this?

Because contrary information from the data stream and lack of filtering through the positions of Theism or Atheism, demand it.

And the interesting thing about it, is that I am taking into account the idea that we exist within a creation, and from that, the opposite of what you are arguing is showing itself relevant enough for me to stick me dukes up about it.

This is a debate setting, after all ....



Bottom line, you believe the system is non deterministic because if it wasn't, then GOD cannot exist.
As I understand it, your reasoning is off. Like the definition of 'sin, it 'misses the mark'.

[Inquirer]

[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?

.

Well I never meant to imply that the creation and the creator were the same thing. I meant that the universe is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God, that there can be no universe unless created by God, it is inseparable from God in that sense. The universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God and could never exist without God.

Then show your evidence.

Show your evidence that the universe is a manifestation of God

Show your evidence that the universe is an aspect of God

Show your evidence that there can be no universe unless created by God

Show your evidence that the universe is inseparable from God in that sense

Show your evidence that the universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God

Show your evidence that the universe could never exist without God

I ask because mere assertions just doesn't cut it.


.

Only if you prove to me that you understand what free will and morality and causality and self evident and non-determinism and explanation and theory and falsifiability all mean. Unless you truly understand all of these concepts, nothing I show you will mean anything to you and would just be a huge waste of my valuable time.

[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?

.

Well I never meant to imply that the creation and the creator were the same thing. I meant that the universe is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God, that there can be no universe unless created by God, it is inseparable from God in that sense. The universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God and could never exist without God.

Then show your evidence.

Show your evidence that the universe is a manifestation of God

Show your evidence that the universe is an aspect of God

Show your evidence that there can be no universe unless created by God

Show your evidence that the universe is inseparable from God in that sense

Show your evidence that the universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God

Show your evidence that the universe could never exist without God

I ask because mere assertions just doesn't cut it.


.

Only if you prove to me that you understand what free will and morality and causality and self evident and non-determinism and explanation and theory and falsifiability all mean. Unless you truly understand all of these concepts, nothing I show you will mean anything to you and would just be a huge waste of my valuable time.

Sorry but requests and questions don't work that way here on DC&R. Asked first---answers first. My request, coming before yours, trumps your request. Meaning you're obligated to answer my request first. And as long as you're asking questions that require answers to your satisfaction, I'll do the same: To my satisfaction, Inquirer.


.

[Inquirer]

[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?

.

Well I never meant to imply that the creation and the creator were the same thing. I meant that the universe is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God, that there can be no universe unless created by God, it is inseparable from God in that sense. The universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God and could never exist without God.

Then show your evidence.

Show your evidence that the universe is a manifestation of God

Show your evidence that the universe is an aspect of God

Show your evidence that there can be no universe unless created by God

Show your evidence that the universe is inseparable from God in that sense

Show your evidence that the universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God

Show your evidence that the universe could never exist without God

I ask because mere assertions just doesn't cut it.


.

Only if you prove to me that you understand what free will and morality and causality and self evident and non-determinism and explanation and theory and falsifiability all mean. Unless you truly understand all of these concepts, nothing I show you will mean anything to you and would just be a huge waste of my valuable time.

Sorry but requests and questions don't work that way here on DC&R. Asked first---answers first. My request, coming before yours, trumps your request. Meaning you're obligated to answer my request first. And as long as you're asking questions that require answers to your satisfaction, I'll do the same: To my satisfaction, Inquirer.


.

Sorry, asking me to justify paraphrased claims is a common tactic here, not accusing you of anything intentional but it can trip up a debate if it goes unnoticed. Go to the posts where you think I made each of the claims in your list. Then respond to those posts and quote EXACTLY what I wrote (not what you think I wrote) that you want to discuss. I'll gladly answer you then.

Much of what I've said here is in the form of reasoned arguments from initial premises. If you disagree with a premise then say so, if you disagree with the reasoning say so. We can't argue about "evidence" without being clear and agreeing about inductive reasoning, interpretations, self evidentiality and so on. For example it is self evident to me that I have free will, am I correct? must I show evidence? is there evidence? are you equipped to judge it? what if you reject it?

We're discussing metaphysics and terms like "evidence" have to be treated with caution because different people can mean different things by it and attach different significance to it. An example was pointed out by me a few days ago, if someone were to claim "If the moon's orbital velocity around the earth were to drop to zero, the moon would fall and crash into the earth". I could ask for evidence for this and there is none, only arguments based on induction, so one could reject the claim as an unsupported claim.

This is known as the problem of induction, Hume wrote about this:

It was given its classic formulation by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–76), who noted that all such inferences rely, directly or indirectly, on the rationally unfounded premise that the future will resemble the past.

If a person were asked why he believes that the Sun will rise tomorrow, he might say something like the following: in the past, the Earth has turned on its axis every 24 hours (more or less), and there is a uniformity in nature that guarantees that such events always happen in the same way.

But how does one know that nature is uniform in this sense? It might be answered that, in the past, nature has always exhibited this kind of uniformity, and so it will continue to do so in the future. But this inference is justified only if one assumes that the future must resemble the past. How is this assumption itself justified?

So asking for evidence is itself something that requires justification, does this make sense to you?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #166]

What I am disputing is this claim that a mechanism made from purely deterministic parts can "develop" some ability to stop behaving deterministically. There's nothing in physics or the laws of physics to support such a bizarre claim. That the brain/mind seems able to do this does not prove your claim, all it proves is that there must be something other than the material parts.

It doesn't need to "stop behaving deterministically." It just needs to carry out functions at a high level that appear to be non-deterministic because of their complexity and our lack of understanding of the exact mechanisms at the molecular level. Nothing "bizarre" about that, and it is perfectly compatible with physics and the laws of physics.

No, I agree there's nothing bizarre about a system being unpredictable, you could have just said that earlier, I thought you were arguing that the brain/mind is truly non-deterministic and that this is compatible with, emergent from, causality. Of course you're now left with the problem of explaining good and evil in any absolute sense given that each of us does only what the laws of nature determine we should do, that we have no free will. You're also arguing that you do not possess free will, do you believe that?

If we thoroughly understood the brain at the molecular level we should be able to describe all of the components, signals and pathways involved in thoughts and decision making, etc., and have a fully materialistic explanation. This is only contradictory to your own insistence in describing decision making ability as non-deterministic at all levels, which then allows a claim that it "must" involve some sort of supernatural agent or force or "something else."

I see, well the disconnect is that I believe I have free will, not apparent free will, actual freedom to choose what I think about. It is this that is incompatible with determinism, if you are arguing that we do not have free will and this is just apparent then that's fine, its a reasonable position but there can then be no absolute good or bad, right or wrong, only relatively, rape, torture, abuse, exploitation are all just due to the laws of nature because there is nothing else.