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]

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?

I don't know, has your claim been shown to be the case? The claim "Everything is governed by the laws of nature" is identical to claiming that everything is deterministic yet you are claiming we can choose! Free will to choose cannot exist in a universe where everything is governed by laws. Because the future state of a system is always dictated by current state + laws, that's why we are able to build complex machines.

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.

The replication is subject to and because of the laws we know about chemistry, why would it be surprising that DNA obeys laws?

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.

How can we combine deterministic systems to get a non-deterministic system? A crude analogy might be claiming that if we add enough even numbers together, perhaps trillions, we might one day get an odd result, I don't believe that kind of unscientific claim myself.

The only reason aircraft fly is that the whole is a deterministic system and that's because the parts are all deterministic.

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.

We are nothing like a computer, we have no CPU, no algorithms, completely different system structure.

How can one choose A or B when a systems state is subject to laws? The only way you can support the claim is to say we are non-deterministic in which case science must be abandoned because science is predicated on determinism. You cannot use science to describe and study a non-deterministic system by definition.

Imagine using science to explain some outcome and when pressed for the theory, the laws, you answered well in this case the system chose its new state, no laws were involved.

Can a ball choose to not fall when dropped? (why not). Can the moon choose to start rotating in the opposite direction one day? (why not).

[Inquirer]

[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

Let me be clear I am of the opinion that we - people - do have true free will. My thesis here is that as soon as we admit that, we must abandon science as a means to explain ourselves because science has no scope for non-determinism. My entire point is that people possess an ability beyond what we can analyze with science. Mathematics has no scope for describing a system with free will and we cannot claim that free will "emerges" from laws, there is no way to use laws to describe a system that is not subject to laws, just as we cannot get an odd number by adding even numbers no matter how many of them we add.

This is ultimately another proof of God, to what else can we attribute this "will"? we can never attribute it to laws, determinism, so there must be another facet to reality - like it or not this is the truth staring us in the face, accept it and move forward or reject it and continue with the fantasy.

[Difflugia]

The claim "Everything is governed by the laws of nature" is identical to claiming that everything is deterministic yet you are claiming we can choose! Free will to choose cannot exist in a universe where everything is governed by laws. Because the future state of a system is always dictated by current state + laws, that's why we are able to build complex machines.

My thesis here is that as soon as we admit that, we must abandon science as a means to explain ourselves because science has no scope for non-determinism.

Conforming to even fixed probability doesn't mean deterministic and science is just fine with nondeterminism. In fact, the methods for calculating results assume nondeterminism. Otherwise, there'd be no need for p-values.

If determinism were required for complex machines, there'd be no reason to plan for failures. Beyond a certain level of complexity, it's easier to treat the system as nondeterministic than it is to enumerate every possible failure state. Even something like a stress fracture or manufacturing defect is nondeterministic from the point of view of an engineer, so to claim that determinism is required for working machines is trivially false.

[Inquirer]

The claim "Everything is governed by the laws of nature" is identical to claiming that everything is deterministic yet you are claiming we can choose! Free will to choose cannot exist in a universe where everything is governed by laws. Because the future state of a system is always dictated by current state + laws, that's why we are able to build complex machines.

My thesis here is that as soon as we admit that, we must abandon science as a means to explain ourselves because science has no scope for non-determinism.

Conforming to even fixed probability doesn't mean deterministic and science is just fine with nondeterminism. In fact, the methods for calculating results assume nondeterminism. Otherwise, there'd be no need for p-values.

If determinism were required for complex machines, there'd be no reason to plan for failures. Beyond a certain level of complexity, it's easier to treat the system as nondeterministic than it is to enumerate every possible failure state. Even something like a stress fracture or manufacturing defect is nondeterministic from the point of view of an engineer, so to claim that determinism is required for working machines is trivially false.

Why should I not regard such events as simply unpredictable? how do you distinguish between an unpredictable event (one that has an unknown cause) and a non-deterministic event (one that has no cause)?

[Difflugia]

Why should I not regard such events as simply unpredictable? how do you distinguish between an unpredictable event (one that has an unknown cause) and a non-deterministic event (one that has no cause)?

Regard them how you want. Your claim was that determinism is necessary for working machinery and incompatible with science. Anything that is robust enough for an "unpredictable event" is robust to nondeterminism by definition. Both engineering and science are.

[Inquirer]

Why should I not regard such events as simply unpredictable? how do you distinguish between an unpredictable event (one that has an unknown cause) and a non-deterministic event (one that has no cause)?

Regard them how you want. Your claim was that determinism is necessary for working machinery and incompatible with science. Anything that is robust enough for an "unpredictable event" is robust to nondeterminism by definition. Both engineering and science are.

You didn't answer my question, can you or can't you distinguish between unpredictable and non-deterministic? If you have no means to do this then why even propose non-determinism (not caused)? why not just say there are certain outcomes we know of that we can't predict yet?

Do you assume that every time we observe an event that we did not foresee, did not anticipate, cannot anticipate, then that event literally had no cause? You regard that as doing science? because it sounds like believing magic to me.

[Difflugia]

You didn't answer my question, can you or can't you distinguish between unpredictable and non-deterministic?

Because that question has no bearing on anything either of us said.

If you have no means to do this then why even propose non-determinism (not caused)? why not just say there are certain outcomes we know of that we can't predict yet?

That's an excellent question. Neither you asking it nor any possible answer means that determinism is required for engineering or science, though.

Do you assume that every time we observe an event that we did not foresee, did not anticipate, then that even truly had no cause?

No.

You regard that as doing science?

In itself? Obviously not.

[Inquirer]

You didn't answer my question, can you or can't you distinguish between unpredictable and non-deterministic?

Because that question has no bearing on anything either of us said.

It might very well have a bearing, it all depends on your answer, why the reticence?

If you have no means to do this then why even propose non-determinism (not caused)? why not just say there are certain outcomes we know of that we can't predict yet?

That's an excellent question. Neither you asking it nor any possible answer means that determinism is required for engineering or science, though.

I disagree, science is predicated on causality, the discovery of causal relationships. We claim to "scientifically understand" something when we can make reliable predictions about it, when we cannot we admit that we do not understand not that we understand that it is uncaused, that there is no relationship.

Do you assume that every time we observe an event that we did not foresee, did not anticipate, then that even truly had no cause?

No.

When do you assume it then? under what circumstances do you regard something as having no cause?

You regard that as doing science?

In itself? Obviously not.

Does science involve seeking relationships between causes and effects or not? Does science involve developing the means to predict outcomes or not?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #71]

How can one choose A or B when a systems state is subject to laws? The only way you can support the claim is to say we are non-deterministic in which case science must be abandoned because science is predicated on determinism. You cannot use science to describe and study a non-deterministic system by definition.

By whose definition? Science does not prohibit an idea such as consciousness being an emergent property of a brain. Just because we can't yet write down all the mechanisms at a molecular level does not mean that they don't exist. This sounds like just another example of resorting to some nonscience alternative (eg. spirit or the like) when science cannot yet provide a full answer.

It is not correct that a system built from individual deterministic components cannot result in non-deterministic behavior (humans are proof of that). You keep insisting that this is the case and give examples like adding up even numbers and eventually getting an odd number, but that is not an analogy to how a living organism can exist with all of the capabilities of that living thing, while still being made of deterministic molecules obeying the laws of chemistry.

The only answer to your repeated insistence that non-deterministic behavior cannot arise from deterministic components, given that conscious humans do exist, is that the property of consciousness is something magical that cannot be explained materialistically. This has not been demonstrated at any level, while at least there is progress in understanding how consciousness may arise from brain activity. Many published papers exist and continue to appear, and two books on my shelf that delve into the subject are:

"The Origin of Mind - Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence", David C. Geary, American Psychological Association, 2010 (4th printing).

"Consciousness and the Brain ; Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts", Stanislas Dehaene, Penguin Books, 2014.

Nature also has a series of recent studies:

https://www.nature.com/subjects/consciousness

which includes this review (unfortunately behind a paywall):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-022-00587-4

[Difflugia]

If you have no means to do this then why even propose non-determinism (not caused)? why not just say there are certain outcomes we know of that we can't predict yet?

That's an excellent question. Neither you asking it nor any possible answer means that determinism is required for engineering or science, though.

I disagree, science is predicated on causality, the discovery of causal relationships. We claim to "scientifically understand" something when we can make reliable predictions about it, when we cannot we admit that we do not understand not that we understand that it is uncaused, that there is no relationship.

Even aside from the attempt to conflate causality and determinism, your statement isn't true in any absolute sense. We can reliably predict what proportion of a large number of radioactive atoms will decay over a given time, but not when or whether a particular one will. Neither is incompatible with science or the scientific method.

Does science involve seeking relationships between causes and effects or not?

"Involve?" Yes.

Does science involve developing the means to predict outcomes or not?

Yes.