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 #180]

You're also arguing that you do not possess free will, do you believe that?

But I'm not arguing that at all. I believe I have the ability to make choices as I see fit, but that those decisions are ultimately the result of my brain's functions that are mechanistic at a molecular level.

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,

It is not incompatible with the mechanistic workings of a brain enabling free will as an emergent property.

... 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.

I didn't suggest that free will is only apparent, only that the mechanistic details of how this (and other) emergent properties arise at a molecular level is (so far) too complicated and with too many component parts for us to understand it fully. I see no reason to invoke some sort of external force or input to explain free will or any nonphysical properties (eg. thoughts) created by a working brain. It is an unnecessary hypothesis that does nothing to explain anything ... it is no different from claims of miracles and the like.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #180]

You're also arguing that you do not possess free will, do you believe that?

But I'm not arguing that at all. I believe I have the ability to make choices as I see fit, but that those decisions are ultimately the result of my brain's functions that are mechanistic at a molecular level.

So your actions are basically "the result of my brain's functions that are mechanistic at a molecular level" - no free will is involved in that case, systems that adhere to laws cannot be said to have free will.

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,

It is not incompatible with the mechanistic workings of a brain enabling free will as an emergent property.

Free will cannot be emergent, because if we can make something emerge then it was pretty obviously caused to emerge which is determinism. Emergent behavior/properties are always the result of cause and effect even though we might not be able to model (predict) it.

... 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.

I didn't suggest that free will is only apparent, only that the mechanistic details of how this (and other) emergent properties arise at a molecular level is (so far) too complicated and with too many component parts for us to understand it fully. I see no reason to invoke some sort of external force or input to explain free will or any nonphysical properties (eg. thoughts) created by a working brain. It is an unnecessary hypothesis that does nothing to explain anything ... it is no different from claims of miracles and the like.

Complicated does not mean non-deterministic, unpredictable does not mean non-deterministic. Free will is the opposite of deterministic, science explains everything in terms of determinism so science can never explain free will.

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #180]

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.

I think you are fabricating and not been attentive to your own reasoning re superimposing concepts of good and evil onto nature - into the nature of physical reality.

The "laws of nature" are not governed through morality. They are Amoral.

It is morality which gives a sense of the self having/operating with an actual free will. Morality has imposed itself into said experiential reality and sought to govern nature from a moralistic position on the frontier.

It's failure to progress is noted.

Consensual sex, pleasure, use, inventiveness are also just due to the laws of nature and also require no free will in order to function.

This is because such things are concepts of the mind. One concept of the mind is that free will exists when in reality, what is happening is one is exercising ones will where and when the nature of reality allows choice to occur. We need to take care not to conflate/superimpose having the freedom [relative to nature] to choose, with having some kind of absolute and fundamental free will.

Even Nature Itself has no apparent free will to shape itself in any way that it so chooses. There are "rules" which determine the outcomes...and even if we suppose those rules can be bent and broken [the sun doesn't rise tomorrow ] we needn't think that this would imply somehow that the universe has developed true free will.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #180]

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.

I think you are fabricating and not been attentive to your own reasoning re superimposing concepts of good and evil onto nature - into the nature of physical reality.

The "laws of nature" are not governed through morality. They are Amoral.

Precisely, in a deterministic universe where free will does not exist, amorality is unavoidable, we agree here.

It is morality which gives a sense of the self having/operating with an actual free will. Morality has imposed itself into said experiential reality and sought to govern nature from a moralistic position on the frontier.

It's failure to progress is noted.

Consensual sex, pleasure, use, inventiveness are also just due to the laws of nature and also require no free will in order to function.

Yes, many share that view.

This is because such things are concepts of the mind. One concept of the mind is that free will exists when in reality, what is happening is one is exercising ones will where and when the nature of reality allows choice to occur. We need to take care not to conflate/superimpose having the freedom [relative to nature] to choose, with having some kind of absolute and fundamental free will.

Even Nature Itself has no apparent free will to shape itself in any way that it so chooses. There are "rules" which determine the outcomes...and even if we suppose those rules can be bent and broken [the sun doesn't rise tomorrow ] we needn't think that this would imply somehow that the universe has developed true free will.

The elephant in the room remains though, if reality is deterministic as you believe, then what caused determinism to exist? to what cause can it be attributed? determinism cannot be the reason that the universe is deterministic.

The only way out of this mess is to just do the obvious and admit that free will must exist, because without it determinism could never exist.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #182]

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

However, we observe that without the laws of nature, the opportunity of will being exercised is null.
Thus your statement the choice is they are never the result of laws, has to be qualified as 'false'.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #184]

Precisely, in a deterministic universe where free will does not exist, amorality is unavoidable, we agree here.

If there were such a thing as "a deterministic universe where free will does not exist" we would indeed be agreeing.
However, we have to focus on the reality of this universe, rather than hypothetical ones.

The existence of consciousness within this universe does not prove that this universe is a non-deterministic universe.

The elephant in the room remains though, if reality is deterministic as you believe, then what caused determinism to exist?

"What caused consciousness to exist?" is the actual question you are asking.

The answer is that we do not know. We do not even know if consciousness is emergent of the universe of if the universe is emergent of consciousness.

The ability to determine is an attribute of consciousness. Human consciousness is not able to choose to do things with the universe, outside of the constructs of the laws of the universe - as they are currently understood. Therefore the will of consciousness is limited and thus not truly free.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #184]

Precisely, in a deterministic universe where free will does not exist, amorality is unavoidable, we agree here.

If there were such a thing as "a deterministic universe where free will does not exist" we would indeed be agreeing.
However, we have to focus on the reality of this universe, rather than hypothetical ones.

I must ask then, what exactly is your position then? is the universe deterministic or not? does free will exist or not?

The existence of consciousness within this universe does not prove that this universe is a non-deterministic universe.

Right but you just said to me "If there were such a thing as 'a deterministic universe where free will does not exist we would indeed be agreeing" so do you believe the universe is deterministic or not? Can I get a straight answer?

The elephant in the room remains though, if reality is deterministic as you believe, then what caused determinism to exist?

"What caused consciousness to exist?" is the actual question you are asking.

Th answer is that we do not know. We do not even know if consciousness is emergent of the universe of the universe is emergent of consciousness.

The ability to determine is an attribute of consciousness. Human consciousness is not able to choose to do things with the universe, outside of the constructs of the laws of the universe - as they are currently understood. Therefore the will of consciousness is limited and thus not truly free.

No, the actual question I asked was "what caused determinism to exist?" you say that "we don't know" but we do know that it cannot have been determinism, logically, rationally we reach that realization. Causality, determinism, cause and effect, laws of nature - if they do exist - cannot be attributed to themselves not unless you want to abandon science.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #187]

I must ask then, what exactly is your position then?

Natural Neural Neutral.

is the universe deterministic or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the mass.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the mass.

does free will exist or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the will.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the will.

The will can only work within the boundaries of the freedom attainable re those boundaries.

Either way, I cannot see that the existence of free will is a reality in this universe, given the variables available to us with will.
Therefore I have to currently conclude that the idea of free will is conceptional rather than real.
{same applies to Mathematics and Time} more on that here;

do you believe the universe is deterministic or not? Can I get a straight answer?

My position [Natural Neural Neutral.] prevents me from forming beliefs on any subject.
I lean toward the realization that the universe is deterministic, rather than is an accident.

the actual question I asked was "what caused determinism to exist?" you say that "we don't know" but we do know that it cannot have been determinism, logically, rationally we reach that realization.

Okay. We do know that something caused the universe. We don't know the nature of that which caused it other than it is called "energy".

IF the energy is mindful, THEN the universe was created through intent, implying determinism, logic and rationality.
IF the energy is mindless, THEN the universe was not even created implying non-determinism, non-logic and non-rationality.

Causality, determinism, cause and effect, laws of nature - if they do exist -

It appears to be the case that they do indeed exist.

cannot be attributed to themselves not unless you want to abandon science.

Then what is left would have to be that the Energy which creates the universe, is mindful.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #187]

I must ask then, what exactly is your position then?

Natural Neural Neutral.

is the universe deterministic or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the mass.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the mass.

does free will exist or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the will.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the will.

The will can only work within the boundaries of the freedom attainable re those boundaries.

Either way, I cannot see that the existence of free will is a reality in this universe, given the variables available to us with will.
Therefore I have to currently conclude that the idea of free will is conceptional rather than real.
{same applies to Mathematics and Time} more on that here;

do you believe the universe is deterministic or not? Can I get a straight answer?

My position [Natural Neural Neutral.] prevents me from forming beliefs on any subject.
I lean toward the realization that the universe is deterministic, rather than is an accident.

the actual question I asked was "what caused determinism to exist?" you say that "we don't know" but we do know that it cannot have been determinism, logically, rationally we reach that realization.

Okay. We do know that something caused the universe. We don't know the nature of that which caused it other than it is called "energy".

IF the energy is mindful, THEN the universe was created through intent, implying determinism, logic and rationality.
IF the energy is mindless, THEN the universe was not even created implying non-determinism, non-logic and non-rationality.

Causality, determinism, cause and effect, laws of nature - if they do exist -

It appears to be the case that they do indeed exist.

cannot be attributed to themselves not unless you want to abandon science.

Then what is left would have to be that the Energy which creates the universe, is mindful.

Alright, I guess that's as clear as I'm going to get from you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #182]

So your actions are basically "the result of my brain's functions that are mechanistic at a molecular level" - no free will is involved in that case, systems that adhere to laws cannot be said to have free will.

I think you're not getting the meaning of "emergent property" as far as the ability of a brain to make decisions and choose. You're claiming that no collection of deterministic molecules, assembled in any form whatsoever, can ever produce a system having capabilities beyond what its components individually are capable of. As long as you keep insisting that this is case then your conclusion is unavoidable, which I suppose is why you can't stray from it no matter what. But it is wrong ... as a working brain demonstrates. Free will, moral judgements, etc. are methods of the class brain.

Free will cannot be emergent, because if we can make something emerge then it was pretty obviously caused to emerge which is determinism. Emergent behavior/properties are always the result of cause and effect even though we might not be able to model (predict) it.

And again, I'm not arguing that the emergent properties are not mechanistically based at the molecular level. In my view they very clearly are, even if we can't yet describe every detail.

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

Except for the case where "I chose to" is a function of the working brain just like "I thought", etc. which is my entire point. These functions can be deterministic at a molecular level just as every other function in a human body, but the integrated actions of millions or billions of such events results in the capabilities of thought and decision making. No need for mysterious external inputs.