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]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #119]

If we do have free will (and I do) then clearly science can never explain free will because there is no material cause -> effect for it.

So you keep saying, as if this (no material cause) were a fact. But that has never been demonstrated to be the case. Free will (the ability to make decisions and choices) may well have a material cause (ie. is a manifestation of a working brain ... an emergent propertiy) that we just have not elucidated the full physical mechanisms for.

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

If my actions are the inevitable consequences of material laws, cause and effect then obviously I cannot have free will, but I do, it is self evident to me that I can choose what to think about, there is an "I" and exist.

All you're doing is declaring, without basis, that there can be no such material cause.

Without basis? what do you mean without basis?? My basis for claiming no causality is the claim that I have free will! Look

Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.

See? did you read that? determinism, cause -> effect is INCONSISTENT with free will, so I am correct and you are incorrect.

My argument is not contradictory ... it is simply that our lack of ability, currently, to describe the mechanistic details does not rule out their existence. You are ruling out their existence via faulty arguments and declaractions that are framed specifically to arrive at only that conclusion.

As you wish, have this your way, I know of nothing more I can say to convince you of your error.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #121]

You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Q: Is it possible we exist within a universe which is deterministic but allows for a semblance of free will?

Q: Is it possibly that a universe which is deterministic was created that way?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #121]

You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Q: Is it possible we exist within a universe which is deterministic but allows for a semblance of free will?

Q: Is it possibly that a universe which is deterministic was created that way?

I don't see how there can be partial free will myself. For any kind of true will to be meaningful there must be non-determinism present, and again I don't think the idea of partial determinism means anything.

Since a non-deterministic system can choose how to behave, it could choose to behave deterministically, that is something that appears to be deterministic might be an illusion, it could be free will that has chosen to appear deterministic. Perhaps this is the universe God created, perhaps he created it and he has chosen that it behaves as we see it, apparently governed by laws.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #123]

I don't see how there can be partial free will myself. For any kind of true will to be meaningful there must be non-determinism present, and again I don't think the idea of partial determinism means anything.

In relation to 'what', is semblance of free will without meaning?

Since a non-deterministic system can choose how to behave, it could choose to behave deterministically, that is something that appears to be deterministic might be an illusion, it could be free will that has chosen to appear deterministic.

Free will is a device. A device cannot choose. Do you mean, the one using their will might choose to use it as a device to view the world as deterministic?

Perhaps this is the universe God created, perhaps he created it and he has chosen that it behaves as we see it, apparently governed by laws.

If you used your will to pray for this God to give you something, and circumstances following the prayer unfolded in a way that had you receiving what you had asked for, wouldn't that be evidence of determinism?

[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.

There are various definitions of "determinism" (and its antonym) this is the one I'm using, so interpret my posts with this definition in mind:

Determinism often 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.

That doesn't address the bit I highlighted in red.

Clearly I am disputing the claim that a machine can violate the laws of physics even though it's made entirely from components that obey the laws of physics.

You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. You merely made an unsupported claim that if all the parts used to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic. Now it is upon you to support that claim.

The definition is best exemplified by the conservation laws, please feel free to argue against conservation laws but if you do, you've abandoned any pretense of science.

Please explain the relevance of the conservation laws in this, or even how the definition has anything to do with them. Was that merely thrown in as a distraction or just some pretense of science on your part?

[brunumb]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Please demonstrate unequivocally that you have free will. How can you tell?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #121]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Of course I can make that claim, without any contradiction whatsoever. All that is required is that our abilities to think, make decisions, be conscious, etc. are manifestations of a working brain (as I have argued all along is a possibility as it has not been disproved). That is, these abilities are created through the actions of the many (deterministic at the molecular level) components of the brain working together as a system that has more capability than its parts. It is very simple in principle, even though we can't yet write down all of the mechanistic steps at the molecular level.

I've repeated this too many times to count, and your counter is always that this scenario is impossible, with the reason given that no combination of deterministic components can ever produce something that can behave non-deterministically. That is demonstrably wrong, as humans with free will do, in fact exist, and are constructed of deterministic atoms and molecules.

[Inquirer]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Please demonstrate unequivocally that you have free will. How can you tell?

It's self evident to me

[Inquirer]

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.

There are various definitions of "determinism" (and its antonym) this is the one I'm using, so interpret my posts with this definition in mind:

Determinism often 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.

That doesn't address the bit I highlighted in red.

Clearly I am disputing the claim that a machine can violate the laws of physics even though it's made entirely from components that obey the laws of physics.

You have not demonstrated that said machine would be violating any laws of physics. You merely made an unsupported claim that if all the parts used to build something are deterministic (molecules, cells, neurons) then by definition the machine will likewise be deterministic. Now it is upon you to support that claim.

This is akin to asking me to "support the claim" that the moon would fall if it's orbital speed were to drop. It is called the argument by extension Brunumb or inductive reasoning, the backbone of science. I just can't believe you've never heard of this and feel that such a claim must be "demonstrated" for it to be true.

The definition is best exemplified by the conservation laws, please feel free to argue against conservation laws but if you do, you've abandoned any pretense of science.

Please explain the relevance of the conservation laws in this, or even how the definition has anything to do with them. Was that merely thrown in as a distraction or just some pretense of science on your part?

Alright if you really need me to do that. If a system is observed that does not obey the laws of physics then something is not being conserved. This could be energy, mass, angular momentum, and so on. You cannot have a system that violates some law of physics yet does not violate any conservation laws, because if all the conservation laws are obeyed then the system is not in violation of any laws of physics. Adhering to the laws of physics is equivalent to saying none of the invariants are changed, no symmetry is broken.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #121]

If free will is a fact then by definition our decision making is free, not the result of cause and effect. You cannot claim to have free will and at the same time claim decisions are determined by cause and effect - this is a blatant contradiction.

Of course I can make that claim, without any contradiction whatsoever. All that is required is that our abilities to think, make decisions, be conscious, etc. are manifestations of a working brain (as I have argued all along is a possibility as it has not been disproved). That is, these abilities are created through the actions of the many (deterministic at the molecular level) components of the brain working together as a system that has more capability than its parts. It is very simple in principle, even though we can't yet write down all of the mechanistic steps at the molecular level.

I've repeated this too many times to count, and your counter is always that this scenario is impossible, with the reason given that no combination of deterministic components can ever produce something that can behave non-deterministically. That is demonstrably wrong, as humans with free will do, in fact exist, and are constructed of deterministic atoms and molecules.

Yes humans with free will do exist, yes humans are made from deterministic components. Therefore since free will cannot arise from determinism our free will must be attributed to something other than the material components that comprise us.

You are arguing that our physical make up and the laws of physics are sufficient to exhibit free will and that the fact we have free will proves your case but that's fatally flawed reasoning. Something else must be involved because if there is laws of physics and matter/energy and nothing else, there can never be non-determinism because laws mean determinism.

In a deterministic system everything that happens is an inevitable consequence of what happened before, there can be no "decisions" no "choices" the laws are the laws and must be obeyed.