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.

[Jose Fly]

Again you are using terms that you refuse to define, the latest being "members".

Well this "discussion" got really stupid, really fast. I've certainly got better things to do than this.

[Inquirer]

Again you are using terms that you refuse to define, the latest being "members".

Well this "discussion" got really stupid, really fast. I've certainly got better things to do than this.

Really? I found it rather amusing myself.

[Bust Nak]

Given that humans are believed to be mechanisms (albeit of great complexity) on what basis can we say that murder or torture is wrong?

On the basis of what a particular machine feels about murder or torture.

Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is?

Given that a person is a machine, at least under the context of both human and cars operate under nothing but the naturalistic laws, it is most definitely not the case that destruction of a machine has no moral component. Some destructions of machines have moral component, others don't; where there is a moral component, it ranges from "meh" to "unthinkable." It all depends on which particular machine, under what circumstances.

Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.

No. Why would it be? There is no reason to think the feelings of a machine would remain the regardless of which machine.

If I create a robot puppy that looked realistic and acted similar to a real puppy, would it be OK to smash that robot in front of people yet wrong to do the same thing to a real puppy?

Depends on exactly how close the robot is to a real puppy in terms of its mechanism, with respect to it's capacity for consciousness in particular.

[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?

On the basis of what a particular machine feels about murder or torture.

But what does "feel" mean? How can we scientifically measure what some mechanism "feels", for example how do I measure "feeling" for say an oscillator or a clock?

Why is destruction of a machine regarded as having no moral component yet destruction of a person is?

Given that a person is a machine, at least under the context of both human and cars operate under nothing but the naturalistic laws, it is most definitely not the case that destruction of a machine has no moral component. Some destructions of machines have moral component, others don't; where there is a moral component, it ranges from "meh" to "unthinkable." It all depends on which particular machine, under what circumstances.

Again, scientifically, how do we determine the moral aspects of smashing up a clock, we could measure its feelings but that brings us back to question above.

Surely destroying any mechanism is the same irrepestective of the mechanism.

No. Why would it be? There is no reason to think the feelings of a machine would remain the regardless of which machine.

I meant qualitatively, destruction is a forced rearrangement of the parts that constitute some mechanism, in a qualitative sense, blowing up a clock and a human are the same - a forced rearrangement of the constituent parts, huge increase in entropy, surely this is true?

If I create a robot puppy that looked realistic and acted similar to a real puppy, would it be OK to smash that robot in front of people yet wrong to do the same thing to a real puppy?

Depends on exactly how close the robot is to a real puppy in terms of its mechanism, with respect to it's capacity for consciousness in particular.

What is consciousness then, how can we detect its presence?

[Bust Nak]

But what does "feel" mean? How can we scientifically measure what some mechanism "feels", for example how do I measure "feeling" for say an oscillator or a clock?

Try asking the subject.

I meant qualitatively, destruction is a forced rearrangement of the parts that constitute some mechanism, in a qualitative sense, blowing up a clock and a human are the same - a forced rearrangement of the constituent parts, huge increase in entropy, surely this is true?

Sure.

What is consciousness then, how can we detect its presence?

By checking brain activity for example.

[Inquirer]

But what does "feel" mean? How can we scientifically measure what some mechanism "feels", for example how do I measure "feeling" for say an oscillator or a clock?

Try asking the subject.

I just asked my clock, it remained silent, just tick...tock...tick...tock.

I meant qualitatively, destruction is a forced rearrangement of the parts that constitute some mechanism, in a qualitative sense, blowing up a clock and a human are the same - a forced rearrangement of the constituent parts, huge increase in entropy, surely this is true?

Sure.

What is consciousness then, how can we detect its presence?

By checking brain activity for example.

The clock I have doesn't contain anything that looks like a biological brain, do you think that only biological brains "feel"? If so, I wonder what it is about those mechanisms that other mechanisms don't seem to have?

[brunumb]

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.

[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.

[Bust Nak]

I just asked my clock, it remained silent, just tick...tock...tick...tock.

Pretty safe to conclude that it isn't feeling anything about murder and torture then, isn't it?

The clock I have doesn't contain anything that looks like a biological brain, do you think that only biological brains "feel"?

No, I don't.

If so, I wonder what it is about those mechanisms that other mechanisms don't seem to have?

n/a

[brunumb]

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?

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.

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.