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.

[Bust Nak]

So you wimmins're whore's, and a good bunch of the rest of ya man kissing homos!

Moderator Comment

This is inappropriate language for our forum.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

I take that to mean you can prove that some event was demonstrably not causal, is that right?

No, I was referring to compatibilism.

[Inquirer]

I take that to mean you can prove that some event was demonstrably not causal, is that right?

No, I was referring to compatibilism.

Ahh I see, well we will clearly disagree, as a scientifically inclined person I do not subscribe to compatibilism, I find it self contradictory, a contrived definition of "free" and "will".

[Bust Nak]

Ahh I see, well we will clearly disagree, as a scientifically inclined person I do not subscribe to compatibilism, I find it self contradictory, a contrived definition of "free" and "will".

Interesting. Do you subscribe to determinism, do you affirm the existence of free will?

[Inquirer]

Ahh I see, well we will clearly disagree, as a scientifically inclined person I do not subscribe to compatibilism, I find it self contradictory, a contrived definition of "free" and "will".

Interesting. Do you subscribe to determinism, do you affirm the existence of free will?

I do assume determinism when discussing science, the foundation of science is the belief that there are laws relating causes and effects. We never regard an unexplained observation as evidence for an absence of a cause only for an absence of the knowledge of the cause.

I possess free will yes and to do so I affirm that there is a non scientific cause, a cause that is not the inevitable result of laws, but to do so I must abandon the view that everything has a scientific explanation, that we must expand the nature of our explanations.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

"Assume determinism when discussing science" sounds like you don't subscribe to determinism.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

"Assume determinism when discussing science" sounds like you don't subscribe to determinism.

Leaving aside the term "subscribe" I believe the deterministic aspects of the universe are governed by science but the non-deterministic aspects by God, will, self awareness - "spirit" if you will.

As some philosophers have argued consciousness can be perceived as a part of reality but outside of the restrictive scientific aspects of the universe. That is to say consciousness is present in the universe apart from matter, laws, determinism and is the agency we possess. Consciousness does not arise or emerge from a deterministic system, it something apart from that, it exists innately, not as a result of some complex configuration of matter.

[William]

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

When machines are destroyed, there is no screaming, blood, loss to other machines etc, which happens to be the case with biological machines, such as the human form.

However, this does not mean that killing and eating animals is wrong, and not so long ago in human history, many cultures had no problem with the practice of cannibalism, although the practice was usually reserved as the spoils of war, so was committed against the losers, rather than against members one ones own particular tribe.

Sometimes moralistic ideals have been placed aside by those who are repulsed by the idea of eating other humans - in times of necessity when all other food sources are unavailable.

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.

The destruction of machine can indeed be regarded as morally wrong, if the machine does not belong to the one(s) destroying it.

The 'moral component' of a human form may well have its source in consciousness.

[brunumb]

I'm sticking with my story that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

But I don't see how that can be true. It literally means that a system can behave against the laws of nature, that its actions are not governed by the laws of nature. Yet all the parts that comprise a brain are ultimately no more than atoms and molecules and to argue that atoms and molecules in a sufficiently large agglomeration can act in a way that is not in accord with the scientific laws governing atoms and molecules is to argue magic surely?

Everything is governed by the laws of nature. Has it ever been demonstrated to be otherwise? That applies to large agglomerations of atoms and molecules. Individual atoms and molecules are not able to self-replicate, but put them together into a structure like DNA and that ability emerges. There is no evidence that this is contrary to the laws of nature. The emergent properties of structures like brains allows for consciousness and decision making. We may be nothing more than incredibly complex and elaborate biological computers, but that does not mean that feelings and empathy are meaningless and that we are not able to make decisions about what we consider to be good and bad. Against the laws of nature? Not necessarily, but certainly less magical than outsourcing such things to a spirit dimension or some deity.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #120]

Free will necessitates non-determinism else any decision made is only an apparent "decision" and nothing more than an inevitable outcome due to the laws of nature.

This is why it is important just to call will 'will'.

If I "decide" to go to the store, it is an illusion, I was destined all along to go to the store and have no control,

I think you are conflating. If I make the decision to go to the store, this does not mean that I have not really experienced applying will in that process

in fact there can be no "I" if we are deterministic, it has no meaning.

Even if everything was already determined - for example - my experiences of my life is the product of a pre-written script with accompanying environment as props, this would not make the "I" in that experience, meaningless.

There is no scientific means of "making decisions" because nature shows there are no such things as decisions only laws, causes and effects. If I let go of a ball does it "decide" to fall?

If you decide to let the ball go or decide to keep hold of the ball, you are still deciding to do something with the ball.

Even computers do not make decisions, this is another myth, they mindlessly follow rules, and never ever ever deviate from those rules. Everything a computer does is an unavoidable and inevitable result of its history and current events.

Re the idea of being in a simulated reality, the game-play may be structured like that or it may be structured to allow for deviation from the rule, depending on how the avatar decides to act [either hold the ball or drop it, etc]

DrNoGods: I'm sticking with my story that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

But I don't see how that can be true. It literally means that a system can behave against the laws of nature, that its actions are not governed by the laws of nature. Yet all the parts that comprise a brain are ultimately no more than atoms and molecules and to argue that atoms and molecules in a sufficiently large agglomeration can act in a way that is not in accord with the scientific laws governing atoms and molecules is to argue magic surely?

Re game-simulation theory - it would have to be true that consciousness is that which enters the game play , and since brains are part of the props of the simulation, it couldn't be said that consciousness is an emergent property of brains.

However, personality and character could be said to be emergent properties [co-creations] of the brain-consciousness interaction and are exclusively developed within the context of the game-play, having never existed prior to the brain-consciousness/avatar-consciousness interaction