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.

[Difflugia]

We must accept that if non-determinism is a real phenomenon - which it must be if free will is real - then science can never ever be used to shed light on the mind because the mind possesses free will which is beyond our ability to describe or explain scientifically (because by definition free will, mind, is not restricted by laws of nature). That's the point I'm trying to make and I think its reasonable, surely?

If by "shed light," you include finding patterns (I would), then that's false. Even with free will, we acknowledge that personality is a thing. What would that be, if not patterns to a person's free will? I think you're dangerously close to a circular argument here. You are redefining determinism such that any pattern at all must be considered determinism and then declaring that free will must be non-deterministic by that specific definition.

The lottery is unpredictable but the balls that are cast surely always obey the laws of mechanics do they not? The lottery makes money yet there is no non-determinism involved, there can't be if the behavior of the balls is governed by laws.

Whether it's intentional or not, that's a different concept for determinism than physicists use. Determinism means that if we were able to rewind and replay some event, it would happen exactly the same way every time. Since we can't do that, we can't know for sure, but most physicists suspect (consensus of speculation?) that quantum events would not be repeatable in that way and that the randomness of the universe is real at the quantum level. Determinism means that if one were able to replay the lottery draw, it would happen the same way, every single time. If the draw is sometimes different, whether one time in a hundred, a million, or trillion trillion, it's nondeterministic. In either case, the balls obey mechanical laws. Perhaps not Newton's laws if you require arbitrary precision, but as has been discussed before, those are just simplified approximations. Quantum mechanical laws are governed by probability and can be explored using scientific methods. If most physicists are correct about the nature of the universe, then the ability to replay the events many, many times would give a spread of outcomes that would match those predicted by the laws of quantum mechanics.

If you would consider everything within that paragraph to fall under the umbrella of determinism, then you and I are using the word differently.

Really? I thought you and I had been exchanging views on determinism and the implications for free will and hence morality, what have you been discussing if not this?

We've been discussing whether or not science can measure and draw conclusions about things that aren't deterministic.

How can a discipline predicated on the belief that nature is based on inviolable laws be used to account for things that do not obey any laws? that's what non-determinism is, events that are not the inevitable result of laws, events that have no material cause.

Again, whether it's intentional or not, that's not what determinism and nondeterminism mean in relation to quantum physics. That's fine in principle, but it causes two problems. First, as in the case with me, you'll confuse anyone using a conventional definition of determinism. Second, as I mentioned above, you're making it harder for yourself to avoid a circular argument. If you define determinism such that science can only engage with deterministic phenomena, whatever those are, and define free will such that it's not deterministic, whatever that is, then you'll have to be a bit more careful than you've been about your definitions if the conversation is to have any non-circular meaning.

[William]

The simplest explanations for why we are here and what we are doing...

“Beyond our ‘ape-brained meat sacks’: can transhumanism save our species?”

The unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences...

Does;

[The hard problem of] Consciousness + The [biological] Human form = the co-creation of transhumanism [as an evolving science with a particular purposeful motivation]?

(Will morality be necessary, should this vision evolve into this reality?)

IF:
Consciousness + The [biological] Human form = the co-creation of transhumanism
THEN:
Should it be understood that any purpose which might be involved from the perspective "we exist within a creation" to do with the creation of the Human form, have to do with taking things a step further [re transhumanism].

iow "Did GOD create the Human form for the purpose of the consciousness co-creating through the Human form, to eventually be able to create non-human form [not strictly biological re transhumanism] in which to experience this universe through?"

NOTE:
By the use of the word "GOD" I am not referring to any religious image of said entity, but the overall generic meaning, re Theism as a whole.
______________________________________

From an email I received today Jun 16 2022 - authored by one "Charles Eisenstein"

"Transhumanism and the Metaverse"

The Gospel of Progress
Ever since the archaic divergence of humanity from other hominids, our systems of tools and symbols have developed at an accelerating pace. We depend less and less on the physical capacities of our bodies. We operate more and more in the realm of information: data, words, numbers, and bits.

Quite naturally then, we have conceived an idea of progress the celebrates this development, and a destiny narrative that foresees its endless continuation. Its future is one where we integrate technology ever more fully into our bodies, until we become something more than just bodies. It is one where we immerse ourselves so fully in representation, that virtual reality becomes more compelling to us than material reality. The first is called transhumanism, the second is the Metaverse.

[Ageing cured. Death conquered. Work ended. The human brain reverse-engineered by AI. Babies born outside of the womb. Virtual children, non-human partners. The future of humanity could be virtually unrecognisable by the end of the 21st century]

[Inquirer]

We must accept that if non-determinism is a real phenomenon - which it must be if free will is real - then science can never ever be used to shed light on the mind because the mind possesses free will which is beyond our ability to describe or explain scientifically (because by definition free will, mind, is not restricted by laws of nature). That's the point I'm trying to make and I think its reasonable, surely?

If by "shed light," you include finding patterns (I would), then that's false. Even with free will, we acknowledge that personality is a thing. What would that be, if not patterns to a person's free will? I think you're dangerously close to a circular argument here. You are redefining determinism such that any pattern at all must be considered determinism and then declaring that free will must be non-deterministic by that specific definition.

Yes, I can see how it could look like that. To my mind we either have free will or we do not, I don't see a partial free will as meaningful so irrespective of patterns, preferences a person could - if they so chose - deviate from the pattern or we could regard the patterns as themselves being chosen in some way. If I choose to behave in such a way that it looks - to some - as if I have no free will, then what do you say about that?

The lottery is unpredictable but the balls that are cast surely always obey the laws of mechanics do they not? The lottery makes money yet there is no non-determinism involved, there can't be if the behavior of the balls is governed by laws.

Whether it's intentional or not, that's a different concept for determinism than physicists use. Determinism means that if we were able to rewind and replay some event, it would happen exactly the same way every time. Since we can't do that, we can't know for sure, but most physicists suspect (consensus of speculation?) that quantum events would not be repeatable in that way and that the randomness of the universe is real at the quantum level. Determinism means that if one were able to replay the lottery draw, it would happen the same way, every single time. If the draw is sometimes different, whether one time in a hundred, a million, or trillion trillion, it's nondeterministic. In either case, the balls obey mechanical laws. Perhaps not Newton's laws if you require arbitrary precision, but as has been discussed before, those are just simplified approximations. Quantum mechanical laws are governed by probability and can be explored using scientific methods. If most physicists are correct about the nature of the universe, then the ability to replay the events many, many times would give a spread of outcomes that would match those predicted by the laws of quantum mechanics.

Well yes, this is an interesting point I admit. Test's of Bell's theorem suggest that at the level of quantum physics, indeterminism is real, is present. But that depends upon the interpretation used for quantum mechanics. In the many worlds interpretation, quantum mechanics can be regarded as strictly deterministic. The point remains though, no matter if quantum mechanics does reveal indeterminism, it cannot be explained scientifically, we can't use reductionism to explain the non-determinism.

If you would consider everything within that paragraph to fall under the umbrella of determinism, then you and I are using the word differently.

Perhaps we are.

Really? I thought you and I had been exchanging views on determinism and the implications for free will and hence morality, what have you been discussing if not this?

We've been discussing whether or not science can measure and draw conclusions about things that aren't deterministic.

We have each perhaps pursued slightly different themes then. Since the presence and behavior of a non-deterministic system cannot be explained deterministically, it seems clear that science cannot explain free will, cannot explain the mind. This in turn leads me to conclude that science is limited here and free will, morality etc can never have a scientific explanation or model.

How can a discipline predicated on the belief that nature is based on inviolable laws be used to account for things that do not obey any laws? that's what non-determinism is, events that are not the inevitable result of laws, events that have no material cause.

Again, whether it's intentional or not, that's not what determinism and nondeterminism mean in relation to quantum physics. That's fine in principle, but it causes two problems. First, as in the case with me, you'll confuse anyone using a conventional definition of determinism.

I cited the Wikipedia article's definition though, here it is again:

Determinism is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

How is my use of the term not in accordance with that definition? What could be the confusion? If you scroll down the article there is a section named "Varieties" which variety are you advocating?

Second, as I mentioned above, you're making it harder for yourself to avoid a circular argument. If you define determinism such that science can only engage with deterministic phenomena, whatever those are, and define free will such that it's not deterministic, whatever that is, then you'll have to be a bit more careful than you've been about your definitions if the conversation is to have any non-circular meaning.

Scientific theories enable us to (or aspire to enable us to) make predictions about a future state. If the future state is non-deterministic then by definition it is completely unpredictable and any theory is therefore unfalsifiable, that's what I mean by science being limited and inapplicable as a means of explanation for free will. There is no naturalistic explanation for free will, if there were then it can't be free will.

Just as science cannot possibly explain the presence of the universe science also cannot possibly explain the presence of free will, this is the epistemological conundrum faced by the materialist.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #103]

Yes, I can see how it could look like that. To my mind we either have free will or we do not, I don't see a partial free will as meaningful so irrespective of patterns, preferences a person could - if they so chose - deviate from the pattern or we could regard the patterns as themselves being chosen in some way. If I choose to behave in such a way that it looks - to some - as if I have no free will, then what do you say about that?

e.m.

To my mind, partial free will is a thing.

I relate that to the idea that while we do have will, it is only free relative to the environment the consciousness with the will, is experiencing.

This means that - while the variables may be significantly many, what can be achieved re human will is constrained within the parameter of the underlying laws which govern the material...so "Many choices within a Confine Set."

= "partial free will is a thing". [ideas re that;]
Empower The Inner Empire
Standstill Contemplate
Universe of Wholeness
Science of Consciousness
The word association field
"Partial free will is a thing".

"Many choices within a Confine Set."[ideas re that;]
The Respect You Give and Receive
Who/What/When/Where/Why/How
Working Together With Love
I am not here to judge but to help
Put the Teachings Into Practice
You are not what you think
Making friends with your mind
Experiences that inform choices
"Many choices within a Confine Set."

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #103]

Yes, I can see how it could look like that. To my mind we either have free will or we do not, I don't see a partial free will as meaningful so irrespective of patterns, preferences a person could - if they so chose - deviate from the pattern or we could regard the patterns as themselves being chosen in some way. If I choose to behave in such a way that it looks - to some - as if I have no free will, then what do you say about that?

To my mind, partial free will is a thing.

I relate that to the idea that while we do have will, it is only free relative to the environment is is experiencing.

This means that - while the variables may be significantly many, what can be achieved re human will is constrained within the parameter of the underlying laws which govern the material...so 'many choices within a confined Set.

= "partial free will is a thing".

I think that conflates will with actions resulting from the will. I can will to lift my car over my head, I can want that outcome, that I cannot achieve it physically isn't due to a limitation of will but of material resources. By will I do not mean materially unconstrained only conceptually unconstrained.

We will to do things that we cannot immediately achieve, all the time. It is the will to do them that begins it all, the execution might be a few minutes later or many years, but without the will to do it it would never happen.

Everything begins with will and from that we then use creativity to go from will to execution.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #105]

Everything begins with will and from that we then use creativity to go from will to execution.

To my mind, everything does not start with will at all, but with the mechanism which enables will to become - in the case of our recognised will - from Human consciousness.

Everything to do with human will, begins with human consciousness.

Therefore, will is a function of that which everything [to do with human function] begins with first having consciousness...will derives from consciousness and cannot be considered to be the source of everything to do with human expression.

Will, is an expression of consciousness. It was not will which created consciousness but consciousness which created will.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #105]

Everything begins with will and from that we then use creativity to go from will to execution.

To my mind, everything does not start with will at all, but with the mechanism which enables will to become - in the case of our recognised will - from Human consciousness.

Everything to do with human will, begins with human consciousness.

Therefore, will is a function of that which everything [to do with human function] begins with first having consciousness...will derives from consciousness and cannot be considered to be the source of everything to do with human expression.

Will, is an expression of consciousness. It was not will which created consciousness but consciousness which created will.

That is a way of looking at it, we're using terms though that are far from clearly defined, is "will" different from "consciousness" after all? or are we just struggling to apply some kind of order to all this?

Is there really a hierarchy of "consciousness" with "will" being dependent on that? Surely we can't even apply a reductionist argument to these things?

Could one be conscious, experience consciousness, yet at the same time have no free will? have no ability to choose what to think about?

I could argue that all there is is "will" the ability to create one's thoughts freely, all these other terms being just ways of looking at things rather than actual distinct phenomena.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #107]

That is a way of looking at it, we're using terms though that are far from clearly defined, is "will" different from "consciousness" after all?

We can agree to any term as being the default position.

Why use the term 'will' if it means the same as the term 'consciousness'?

Can we have will without having consciousness?

Can we have consciousness without having will?

[brunumb]

Once again if all the parts use to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic.

Exactly what is that definition? Source please, or demonstrate the truth of it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #100]

I think the point on which we disagree is that you regard the existence of brains (with free will, hence non-determinism) as proof that non-determinism can emerge from determinism. I regard it as evidence that some other phenomenon is at play, something not open to scientific investigation (because non-determinism, absence of causes for events cannot be explained scientifically).

Yes ... it is observed that humans are made of molecules that individually cannot do anything but follow the laws of chemistry and physics, but they have brains which govern their behavior (including free will) that is often non-deterministic. These are direct observations. Explaining how the brain does what it does is the issue, and my view is that its functions result from complicated interactions between all of its constituent deterministic parts (neurons, electrical signals, chemical signals, etc.). It is this complex set of interactions that create the ability to "think", to be conscious, to have free will, etc. These are manifestations of the working brain ... ie. emergent properties.

Your argument is that this is impossible because it is not possible for a combination of deterministic components to ever produce a system that has non-deteministic properties. That is, you don't accept that the physical components of a working brain can produce emergent properties of any kind. I don't agree with this because I don't see any other explanation that does not involve magic or the supernatural, which I believe does not exist in any form (now or in the past), so there must be a materialistic, scientific explanation at the root of it all that we simply have not worked out yet.

The problem I see with your position is that you need matter to be governed by laws of nature and at the same time not be governed by laws of nature, how can one have law that there are no laws?

I don't need any violations of natural laws ... just the idea that the whole can be more than the sum of its parts (ie. there can exist emergent properties of the brain created entirely by the interactions of the components of the brain). I see no reason to discard this possibility just because we can't yet write down every mechanistic detail.