Machines and morality
Moderator: Moderators
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Machines and morality
Post #1Given 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
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #81I never said science prohibits non-determinism only that it has no utility, no role to play. As for emergent properties yes these can and do exist but they do not imply non-determinism, they imply a deficiency in our understanding.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:09 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #71]
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.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.
Again, why do you describe unpredictability as non-determinism? uncaused? why not just say we can't yet predict the outcome?
Very well, please give me an example from biology that you regard as proof of non-determinism? uncaused outcomes?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:09 pm 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.
It cannot be explained causally! by definition saying that X happens without any cause whatsoever is not a scientific explanation! Scientific explanations enable us to make predictions, if we cannot predict an outcome of some process then by definition we do not understand that process, if we cannot test a claim then it is not falsifiable is it?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:09 pm 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.
I've not read those books so cannot comment in any way.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:09 pm 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
Free will cannot be explained scientifically if it is truly free will, outcomes that are uncaused cannot by definition be explained through causes which is the same as saying that uncaused outcomes can never be scientifically explained - which is rather obvious I would have thought.
Last edited by Inquirer on Tue Jun 14, 2022 1:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #82Exactly, we cannot predict it for individual atoms, so how does an inability to predict get elevated by you to non-determinism? I've asked you this already though and no answer has been forthcoming...Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:15 pmEven 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.Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:50 amI 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.
As for your accusation I am conflating, consider this:
So, continuing:Wikipedia wrote:Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
Indeed and a non-deterministic event is entirely, completely unpredictable so science cannot be used to understand non-determinism. How could one have a testable theory that claims to explain things that have no cause? Obviously testability rules out uncaused events, science can only ever deal with caused events and that rules out genuine free will which by definition are outcomes that are materially uncaused.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3232 times
- Been thanked: 1984 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #83Nobody's elevating anything. You've claimed that engineering and science are incompatible with nondeterminism, I succinctly explained why that's wrong, and your rebuttal is to try to put words in my mouth.
You can say this as many times as you want, but it's still wrong. Casinos make money because nondeterministic events can be predicted, at least in the aggregate. Whether or not the apparent lack of determinism is simply an illusion created by complexity is immaterial. Electronic slot machines incorporate the environment into their random number generators such that from at least the point of view of the systems designer, the number generation is nondeterministic even in principle, yet a casino operator can not only predict the take at the end of a shift, but can actually configure the machine to reliably pay out at a particular rate. In order for your statement to be true, some part of what I've just written must be false.Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:49 pmIndeed and a non-deterministic event is entirely, completely unpredictable so science cannot be used to understand non-determinism. How could one have a testable theory that claims to explain things that have no cause? Obviously testability rules out uncaused events, science can only ever deal with caused events and that rules out genuine free will which by definition are outcomes that are materially uncaused.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #84I did not state "engineering and science are incompatible with nondeterminism" at least I don't think that's a phrase or expression I've used, so please quote me rather than risk paraphrasing me inaccurately.
How do you know they are non-deterministic and not simply hard to predict?Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:18 pmYou can say this as many times as you want, but it's still wrong. Casinos make money because nondeterministic events can be predicted, at least in the aggregate.Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:49 pmIndeed and a non-deterministic event is entirely, completely unpredictable so science cannot be used to understand non-determinism. How could one have a testable theory that claims to explain things that have no cause? Obviously testability rules out uncaused events, science can only ever deal with caused events and that rules out genuine free will which by definition are outcomes that are materially uncaused.
How can determinism being real or an illusion be immaterial to a discussion about determinism!
Pseudorandom number generators (to give them their correct name) are not examples of non-determinism but of unpredictability, if you disagree then just tell me how you distinguish between the two.Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:18 pm Electronic slot machines incorporate the environment into their random number generators such that from at least the point of view of the systems designer, the number generation is nondeterministic even in principle, yet a casino operator can not only predict the take at the end of a shift, but can actually configure the machine to reliably pay out at a particular rate. In order for your statement to be true, some part of what I've just written must be false.
Then consider this:
I trust that settles the matter, these devices are not non-deterministic.Wikipedia wrote:A pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), also known as a deterministic random bit generator (DRBG), is an algorithm for generating a sequence of numbers whose properties approximate the properties of sequences of random numbers. The PRNG-generated sequence is not truly random, because it is completely determined by an initial value
Casinos do not require non-determinism. Consider Black-Jack, are you really going to argue that the positions of the cards in a deck is not entirely due to their initial ordering and the steps taken by the dealer to shuffle the pack?
Do you know of a test to differentiate non-determinism from mere unpredictability?
Last edited by Inquirer on Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Machines and morality
Post #85[Replying to Inquirer in post #72]
My present understanding is that science has clearly shown that our brains interpret incoming data which comes through our senses and projects that interpretation as feedback and we are therefore not perceiving what we call reality, as it fundamentally is, but only as our brains interpret and feed back the data interpreted.
For example, colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch are all consciously experienced after the brain has interpreted the data of experience and it is the brain which interprets the data as "colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch".
Mathematics itself is a construct of The Mind, as there is no such thing as numbers existing as physical objects in the universe.
Even so, it is clear that Mathematics is integrated with what we call physical reality as we apply it as a most useful device for working things out in relation to said reality being experienced.
It is also clear that mathematics is very useful for describing possible realities which we do not see to actually exist, so in that sense, Mathematics can be said to exist in its own universe, and an aspect of that universe interacts with and even influences outcomes, in our own.
One - somewhat famous diagram is this;
I envision the same idea like this;
as it shows a superimposing rather than a tunneling, but the concept is the same regardless.
Declarations such as the one you present above, are unhelpful. What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
All in all, as you pointed out at the beginning of your post, it is your opinion that there is "true free will", therefore it is unreasonable to go from 'having an opinion' to declaring as a claim that said opinion is somehow "proof of God".
Opinions have their place in the overall scheme of things, but can only ever remain opinions as long as they are not accompanied by supporting evidence.Let me be clear I am of the opinion that we - people - do have true free will.
Based upon your opinion that "people do have true free will"?My thesis here...
Correct me [anyone] if I am wrong about this, but there is no scientific way in which to show that people have "true free will"?...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 present understanding is that science has clearly shown that our brains interpret incoming data which comes through our senses and projects that interpretation as feedback and we are therefore not perceiving what we call reality, as it fundamentally is, but only as our brains interpret and feed back the data interpreted.
For example, colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch are all consciously experienced after the brain has interpreted the data of experience and it is the brain which interprets the data as "colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch".
What ability is that?My entire point is that people possess an ability beyond what we can analyze with science.
If mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?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.
Mathematics itself is a construct of The Mind, as there is no such thing as numbers existing as physical objects in the universe.
Even so, it is clear that Mathematics is integrated with what we call physical reality as we apply it as a most useful device for working things out in relation to said reality being experienced.
It is also clear that mathematics is very useful for describing possible realities which we do not see to actually exist, so in that sense, Mathematics can be said to exist in its own universe, and an aspect of that universe interacts with and even influences outcomes, in our own.
One - somewhat famous diagram is this;
I envision the same idea like this;
as it shows a superimposing rather than a tunneling, but the concept is the same regardless.
The [far more reasonable] position to assume on The Question - "Do we exist within a creation?" is that of Agnosticism;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.
Declarations such as the one you present above, are unhelpful. What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
All in all, as you pointed out at the beginning of your post, it is your opinion that there is "true free will", therefore it is unreasonable to go from 'having an opinion' to declaring as a claim that said opinion is somehow "proof of God".
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #86I can only speak with confidence about myself and I regard my having free will as a self evident truth.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:29 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #72]
Opinions have their place in the overall scheme of things, but can only ever remain opinions as long as they are not accompanied by supporting evidence.Let me be clear I am of the opinion that we - people - do have true free will.
Based upon your opinion that "people do have true free will"?My thesis here...
Correct me [anyone] if I am wrong about this, but there is no scientific way in which to show that people have "true free will"?...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.
Yes.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:29 pm My present understanding is that science has clearly shown that our brains interpret incoming data which comes through our senses and projects that interpretation as feedback and we are therefore not perceiving what we call reality, as it fundamentally is, but only as our brains interpret and feed back the data interpreted.
For example, colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch are all consciously experienced after the brain has interpreted the data of experience and it is the brain which interprets the data as "colors and sounds and smells and tastes and touch".
Free will.
Yes that could be the case except for the fact that I know I have free will, as I said it is a self evident truth. So my free will cannot be computed mathematically (because it must be non-deterministic) it is not computable.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:29 pmIf mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?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.
Why is it unreasonable to you? We are faced with free will being real (I have it anyway, even if you don't) we are faced with free will being non-determinism, we are faced with the laws of nature being deterministic and so we are faced with how to explain that a physical system (me) can behave non-deterministically when all the parts I'm built from behave deterministically.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:29 pm Mathematics itself is a construct of The Mind, as there is no such thing as numbers existing as physical objects in the universe.
Even so, it is clear that Mathematics is integrated with what we call physical reality as we apply it as a most useful device for working things out in relation to said reality being experienced.
It is also clear that mathematics is very useful for describing possible realities which we do not see to actually exist, so in that sense, Mathematics can be said to exist in its own universe, and an aspect of that universe interacts with and even influences outcomes, in our own.
One - somewhat famous diagram is this;
I envision the same idea like this;
as it shows a superimposing rather than a tunneling, but the concept is the same regardless.
The [far more reasonable] position to assume on The Question - "Do we exist within a creation?" is that of Agnosticism;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.
Declarations such as the one you present above, are unhelpful. What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
All in all, as you pointed out at the beginning of your post, it is your opinion that there is "true free will", therefore it is unreasonable to go from 'having an opinion' to declaring as a claim that said opinion is somehow "proof of God".
Positing God who has will, intent as the source of this non-determinism seems entirely reasonable and rational, what alternative, better explanation can you think of for explaining the presence of non-determinism in systems that are constructed from parts that are strictly deterministic?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Machines and morality
Post #87[Replying to Inquirer in post #86]If mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?
As an Agnostic my position re The Question "Does True Free Will Exist?" is "Lack of any current information to establish certainty"Yes that could be the case except for the fact that I know I have free will, as I said it is a self evident truth. So my free will cannot be computed mathematically (because it must be non-deterministic) it is not computable.
Also, the focus is on the The Question, so am I to assume your claim of having free will corresponds with your belief that TRUE free will exists, and that you consider no difference between your 'free will' and what you previously referred to as "true free will"?
From the Agnostic position;
I accept that your belief that a person has will, as valid.
I remain undecided in relation to your belief that will is free, as it appears that will is only free, relative to the environment which constrains said will.
In that, I can accept the term 'free will' but not the term 'true free will'.
Because I am in the Agnostic position re The Question.Why is it unreasonable to you?
I have this 'free will' but acknowledge that it is only 'free', relative to the environment it is operating within.We are faced with free will being real (I have it anyway, even if you don't)
I do not view this as any kind of dilemma as I can accept the deterministic nature of the environment my will operates within, and that it appears to be operating independently of said deterministic environment.we are faced with free will being non-determinism, we are faced with the laws of nature being deterministic and so we are faced with how to explain that a physical system (me) can behave non-deterministically when all the parts I'm built from behave deterministically.
However, the position of Agnosticism also accepts that things are not always as they appear to be, because ones personal beliefs have a way in which information becomes filtered through said beliefs, allowing for a distorted image rather than a real one.
Agnosticism allows for deeper investigation - taking a closer look, like a detective with a magnifying glass...the pipe, and indeed the substance being smoked, is not necessarily necessary to that end, but perhaps helpful nonetheless.
Removing filters of belief however, are necessary, in order that any image thus presenting, is not distorted.
Agnosticism accepts the validity of the possibility the environment we exist within is indeed a created one {a creation}, implying therefore, that there is a creator.Positing God who has will, intent as the source of this non-determinism seems entirely reasonable and rational, what alternative, better explanation can you think of for explaining the presence of non-determinism in systems that are constructed from parts that are strictly deterministic?
The position of Agnosticism also requires questions are asked, pertaining to the identity of supposed creator, which is why I asked;
What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3232 times
- Been thanked: 1984 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #88I quoted you in an earlier comment. Here it is again:
Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:53 amThe 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.
Did I misunderstand what you meant?
If you mean in a philosophical sense, i.e. deterministic if one could in principle know everything about the state of the universe, then I don't. Since we can't know that at least practically and can't distinguish between the two, but Casinos can still make accurate predictions, then the methods must work whether slot machines are deterministic or not.
Because no matter how much you want to change the subject, that's not what our discussion is about!
Your claim, as I quoted above, was that "science has no scope for non-determinism." That's false whether or not any particular event or the universe itself is, in fact, deterministic.
Slot machines aren't pseudorandom. There are actually technical requirements for randomness in casino games that are legally enforced. The accepted way to do this is a hardware chip that generates pseudorandom bit patterns at clock speed. The chip then latches the current bit pattern in response to an external stimulus, usually the button press to activate a play. As long as each bit position obeys a normal distribution relative to every other bit position over a short enough time interval (like one second, say), the exact pattern can't be predicted even probabilistically in practice and maybe not even in principle, since the exact time that any person would begin a game involves an incredible amount of randomizing entropy and perhaps quantum noise. This would be true, amusingly, even if humans have no free will and could be individually and completely predicted.
But that's all academic. Your claim, once again, is that "science has no scope for non-determinism" and aside from attempts to change the subject, your only argument has been to repeat that science requires some form of causality. Since causality and determinism aren't the same thing, that's still a non sequitur, whether the universe is deterministic or not.
I'm also a programmer and I write software to do scientific data analysis. Part of my job is to identify patterns of nonrandom noise in ADC data, including sampling bias in any particular bit in any particular ADC, and find ways to account for or eliminate it. I know what random means.
But again, you still need to defend your claim that science doesn't work in the absence of determinism. You keep trying to justify your claim by arguing that scientific data might be deterministic at some level, even though the level is well below that of practical data collection.
No. That's why I used slot machines as my example. Gaming commissions do require slot machines to be random in some way that is tied to the chaos of the physical world.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Machines and morality
Post #89Primarily the God we infer from all this, if that corresponds to anything from human history then fine, but I don't at this stage have an identity in mind, its not relevant to the discussion, all that's relevant is that free will must exist and will seems to also be the reason the universe exists.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:34 pm[Replying to Inquirer in post #86]If mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?
As an Agnostic my position re The Question "Does True Free Will Exist?" is "Lack of any current information to establish certainty"Yes that could be the case except for the fact that I know I have free will, as I said it is a self evident truth. So my free will cannot be computed mathematically (because it must be non-deterministic) it is not computable.
Also, the focus is on the The Question, so am I to assume your claim of having free will corresponds with your belief that TRUE free will exists, and that you consider no difference between your 'free will' and what you previously referred to as "true free will"?
From the Agnostic position;
I accept that your belief that a person has will, as valid.
I remain undecided in relation to your belief that will is free, as it appears that will is only free, relative to the environment which constrains said will.
In that, I can accept the term 'free will' but not the term 'true free will'.
Because I am in the Agnostic position re The Question.Why is it unreasonable to you?
I have this 'free will' but acknowledge that it is only 'free', relative to the environment it is operating within.We are faced with free will being real (I have it anyway, even if you don't)
I do not view this as any kind of dilemma as I can accept the deterministic nature of the environment my will operates within, and that it appears to be operating independently of said deterministic environment.we are faced with free will being non-determinism, we are faced with the laws of nature being deterministic and so we are faced with how to explain that a physical system (me) can behave non-deterministically when all the parts I'm built from behave deterministically.
However, the position of Agnosticism also accepts that things are not always as they appear to be, because ones personal beliefs have a way in which information becomes filtered through said beliefs, allowing for a distorted image rather than a real one.
Agnosticism allows for deeper investigation - taking a closer look, like a detective with a magnifying glass...the pipe, and indeed the substance being smoked, is not necessarily necessary to that end, but perhaps helpful nonetheless.
Removing filters of belief however, are necessary, in order that any image thus presenting, is not distorted.
Agnosticism accepts the validity of the possibility the environment we exist within is indeed a created one {a creation}, implying therefore, that there is a creator.Positing God who has will, intent as the source of this non-determinism seems entirely reasonable and rational, what alternative, better explanation can you think of for explaining the presence of non-determinism in systems that are constructed from parts that are strictly deterministic?
The position of Agnosticism also requires questions are asked, pertaining to the identity of supposed creator, which is why I asked;
What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Machines and morality
Post #90[Replying to Inquirer in post #89]
Inevitably it is relevant to the discussion you and I are currently having.
So how do we ascertain the nature of this GOD? Is it - perhaps - the Mind of reality?
What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
Thus, and why you brought GOD into this discussion, is that you believe the logic lead us to that conclusion.Primarily the God we infer from all this, if that corresponds to anything from human history then fine, but I don't at this stage have an identity in mind, its not relevant to the discussion, all that's relevant is that free will must exist and will seems to also be the reason the universe exists.
Inevitably it is relevant to the discussion you and I are currently having.
So how do we ascertain the nature of this GOD? Is it - perhaps - the Mind of reality?