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]

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.

People have applied empathy and understanding to what it means to be human and decided that murder and torture is wrong. That's all that is possible and all that is necessary. Some call upon alleged gods for guidance in these matters but there is no compelling evidence to conclude that they have made any contribution. In fact, stories involving the Christian God indicate that humans on the whole have evolved with a keener sense of what is right or wrong with regard to the treatment of other sentient beings than this god.

I'm sorry, are you really unwilling to answer my question without referring to "Gods" or "Christianity"? I thought I was talking to scientifically oriented people about mechanistic systems, perhaps I was wrong, perhaps I'm expecting too much.

Putting aside your condescending response, what part of "People have applied empathy and understanding to what it means to be human and decided that murder and torture is wrong" don't you understand?

It isn't accurate. First people behave as they've been taught to behave and secondly not all people regard murder or torture as wrong, it is a matter of opinion and nothing else. In war murder is no longer wrong, bombing children is no longer wrong.

The rest is aimed at those trying to suggest that we can only decide what is morally right or wrong on the basis of directions from a deity.

In which case direct such remarks at people who suggest that, I have not suggested any such thing.

ETA: Just because you plonked this in the science section does not make it a science issue. Humans are sentient beings with feelings and emotions regardless of those things arise. They are not machines regardless of how you are trying to characterise them.

It is a science issue, I'm asking - scientifically - what makes a mechanistic system "sentient", on what basis do you now claim we are not machines? We are composed of cells, cells are nano-machines, how can you claim otherwise?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

It is a science issue, I'm asking - scientifically - what makes a mechanistic system "sentient", on what basis do you now claim we are not machines? We are composed of cells, cells are nano-machines, how can you claim otherwise?

What do you object to in post 25 (and 4, and 14) regarding the organization of atoms and cells into more complicated structures and organs that, working together, create consciousness and sentience? You've made no comments on those (standard materialist) descriptions of "what makes a mechanistic system sentient."

The "what" is the functioning of the brain, which itself is made of atoms and cells, but also involves all kinds of electrical signals, proteins doing their thing, neurons firing, etc. It is a very complicated system, that is far more capable than the individual constituents of which it is physically constructed. Things like clocks have no brain or other functional component that can carry out similar functions to create sentience.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

It is a science issue, I'm asking - scientifically - what makes a mechanistic system "sentient", on what basis do you now claim we are not machines? We are composed of cells, cells are nano-machines, how can you claim otherwise?

What do you object to in post 25 (and 4, and 14) regarding the organization of atoms and cells into more complicated structures and organs that, working together, create consciousness and sentience?

It is an untested hypothesis. Nor is there any meaning attached to "working together", "sentience" and "consciousness".

The observation that humans have consciousness does not prove that it arises from anything within us "working together" particularly when we can conceive of no mechanistic basis for it.

You've made no comments on those (standard materialist) descriptions of "what makes a mechanistic system sentient."

The "what" is the functioning of the brain, which itself is made of atoms and cells, but also involves all kinds of electrical signals, proteins doing their thing, neurons firing, etc. It is a very complicated system, that is far more capable than the individual constituents of which it is physically constructed. Things like clocks have no brain or other functional component that can carry out similar functions to create sentience.

Proteins don't "do their thing" they are mindless molecules. Neurons firing are also mindless, purely a cause/effect mechanism, (input, current_state) => (output, new_state) a computable function, neural networks do this and they are not conscious.

The brain is subject to the laws of nature, cause and effect, it is therefore presumably a deterministic system.

So what capability can a very complex deterministic system have that is not present in any of the deterministic sub units that comprise it?

If I am deterministic then I do not have free will, yet that contradicts observation. It is self evident that I have free will therefore I must be non-deterministic but one cannot get non-deterministic behavior in a machine composed of deterministic components.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #43]

It is an untested hypothesis. Nor is there any meaning attached to "working together", "sentience" and "consciousness".

It is based on observation ... no brain, no consciusness. There is plenty of observational support for it and is a rational hypothesis. Do you not have a dictionary, or Google? Try typing in each of the items above in parentheses and see what comes back. You'll find that each of them have very well defined definitions and meanings.

The observation that humans have consciousness does not prove that it arises from anything within us "working together" particularly when we can conceive of no mechanistic basis for it.

Who can't conceive a mechanistic basis for it? It is the most obvious and simple general explanation given all of the other functions managed by the brain such as sight, for example. We know a great deal about how sight works, eg.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482504/

There's no reason to discard the idea that consciousness is not a similar process where multiple subsystems work together (despite your pretending to not know the meaning of that term) to produce the effect. You can't just discard it as wrong because you think consciousness is some special property that is not an emergent property of a working brain. What is your alternative explanation? And what backs up that opinion?

Proteins don't "do their thing" they are mindless molecules. Neurons firing are also mindless, purely a cause/effect mechanism, (input, current_state) => (output, new_state) a computable function, neural networks do this and they are not conscious.

Wrong again. Proteins do a lot of things in the human body, a lot of it based on their specific three dimensional shape. You don't seem to get the fundamental concept that a system composed of many "mindless molecules" can carry out functions far beyond any of its components. It is common and observable in countless examples. Do you not believe that a heart can pump blood because none of the individual atoms or molecules or nerve cells can act as a blood pump by themselves?

So what capability can a very complex deterministic system have that is not present in any of the deterministic sub units that comprise it?

See above. There are so many example of systems that do exactly this it is surprising that you'd ask such a question. Do you deny that a ribosome through its functions can allow an RNA string containing the code for a gene to produce a chain of amino acids that will then fold into a protein? How can the ribosome do this if the small and large subunits of the ribosome cannot do it by themselves?

If I am deterministic then I do not have free will, yet that contradicts observation. It is self evident that I have free will therefore I must be non-deterministic but one cannot get non-deterministic behavior in a machine composed of deterministic components.

Wait ... you suddenly now do know the meaning of "free will"? The human body is a very complicated system of integrated components all working together (again, Google that phrase for a meaning if you don't know it). The fact that non-deterministic behavior is exhibited by humans, made of atoms that themselves only act according to the rules of chemistry, is proof that you can get non-deterministic behavior from a "machine" (or organism in this case) composed of deterministic components. There are many other examples.

[brunumb]

Putting aside your condescending response, what part of "People have applied empathy and understanding to what it means to be human and decided that murder and torture is wrong" don't you understand?

It isn't accurate. First people behave as they've been taught to behave and secondly not all people regard murder or torture as wrong, it is a matter of opinion and nothing else. In war murder is no longer wrong, bombing children is no longer wrong.

Is it that people do not regard those things as wrong or that they merely disregard them to further their own agenda? You may believe that in war murder is no longer wrong or bombing children is no longer wrong, but my understanding of what is morally correct tells me otherwise. People have been taught to behave according to society's current understanding of what is morally correct. That includes not murdering or torturing others. What more is necessary?

(By the way, you may have changed your identity but that does not mean you have erased your previous history in these discussions. I will address your posts keeping that in mind)

[Inquirer]

(By the way, you may have changed your identity but that does not mean you have erased your previous history in these discussions. I will address your posts keeping that in mind)

My posts and arguments are legendary, why on earth would I ever want to erase them!

[brunumb]

(By the way, you may have changed your identity but that does not mean you have erased your previous history in these discussions. I will address your posts keeping that in mind)

My posts and arguments are legendary, why on earth would I ever want to erase them!

Why hide behind a new ID? That often happens when someone has 'soiled their nest' but hope that others will not make the connection when they return in a shiny new suit.

[Purple Knight]

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 irrespective of the mechanism.

I would agree, and I don't think a society that allows murder is fundamentally morally wrong. I don't have a problem with some hypothetical country Murderland as long as it excludes children too young to understand, and as long as there's right of exit, as well as reasonable ease of exit.

If 10,000 people all disagree with the idea that murder is wrong and that's how they want to live, and it doesn't spill into my backyard, more power to them.

(At that point absolutely build the wall though.)

However, we have made a society where we all agree not to murder for the benefit of all.

As I see it, the problem is that people want to reap the prosperity enforced peace brings and still cheat the system and murder when they see fit. The problem as I see it is not that there might be people who philosophically disagree with the idea that murder is wrong and are prepared to follow through and live in the increased danger that would bring.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #14]

Based on these definitions, I'd refer to a robot or any purely mechanical item with or without software control as a mechanism, and a living thing as an organism. Note particularly #4 in the organism definition. This is what I'm referring to as "something much more." Purely mechanical things can have characteristics that are more than the sum of their parts (eg. a car can't transport something from A to B unless all of the components work together as a system). The human brain has a "character of the whole" that is far beyond just the atoms, molecules and electrical and chemical signals that make it function, but there is no doubt that it is constructed of nonliving, physical things interacting in very complex ways to produce thoughts, feelings, memory, emotions and all of the things associated with the "whole."

This is what I think a lot of folk who argue against humans, as being "Great Apes" mean - not because they are alike [in this case form] but because the differences are so wide apart - just as your example above re mechanical and biological - where there are similarities in the way human bodies and machines are, [in this case, function], the similarities end there and the differences are wide apart, as you have noted.

Humans are to machines and apes, something much more, and require a category specific to humans alone.

[brunumb]

It isn't accurate. First people behave as they've been taught to behave and secondly not all people regard murder or torture as wrong, it is a matter of opinion and nothing else. In war murder is no longer wrong, bombing children is no longer wrong.

Is it that people do not regard those things as wrong or that they merely disregard them to further their own agenda? You may believe that in war murder is no longer wrong or bombing children is no longer wrong, but my understanding of what is morally correct tells me otherwise. People have been taught to behave according to society's current understanding of what is morally correct. That includes not murdering or torturing others. What more is necessary?