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 Miles in post #145]

Claims of pantheism don't impress. For one thing, where the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3) it amounts to saying "god created god," which I find a bit silly.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

What I find silly is the ability of anything, god included, to create itself.

Hebrews 11:3 says the universe was created by god, and Inquirer wrote: "God is the universe" which implies the universe and god are one in the same thing, meaning "god created god," which I find a bit silly. Don't you?

.

Well I never meant to imply that the creation and the creator were the same thing. I meant that the universe is a manifestation of God, an aspect of God, that there can be no universe unless created by God, it is inseparable from God in that sense. The universe, everything in it, every particle and laws exist only because of God and could never exist without God.

Like one's love cannot exist apart from us, my love for my wife does not exist or have meaning apart from me and me existing.

[William]

Q: "Can a being who knows everything, [omniscient] actually have free will?"

Do you know the answer?

[Replying to Inquirer in post #158]

I don't know, the answer likely depends on the precise definition of terms.

How do you define "all knowing"?

I said it was self evident that I have free will, just as it is self evident I have existence. I do not doubt these assertions because there are others who question the truth of them.

Do you exist?

Yes.

do you have awareness?

Yes.

are these self evident ?

Yes.

However, these things in themselves do not provide evidence that you or I have free will.

I define free will as an ability to effect change without that change being deterministically driven.

You have the ability to pray for change. If the prayer is answered, then all answered prayer is evidence of determinism.

What example do you offer as "ability to effect change without that change being deterministically driven."?

What caused determinism to exist? what caused laws to exist?

There are two answers

1. They are consequence of determinism - thus a circular argument, a fallacious argument (things caused themselves and other kinds of nonsense)
2. They are consequences of will. Will - God's will - caused causality, laws, determinism to exist.

2. appears to support determinism. Why are you therefore arguing free will?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #145]

Claims of pantheism don't impress. For one thing, where the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3) it amounts to saying "god created god," which I find a bit silly.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

What I find silly is the ability of anything, god included, to create itself.

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Hebrews 11:3 says the universe was created by god, and Inquirer wrote: "God is the universe" which implies the universe and god are one in the same thing, meaning "god created god," which I find a bit silly. Don't you?

I am unsure as to whether Inquirer meant that GOD is the universe, or that the universe was an aspect - a physical rendition/image [or aspect therein] of the immaterial GOD...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #160]

Fine, so we are entirely deterministic BUT as soon as we adopt that position we must abandon any claims that good or bad exist in anything other than a purely relative sense, hence science provides no basis for morality, torture is neither bad nor good, rape is neither bad nor good, these are all entirely nothing more than inevitable consequences of a deterministic, cold, uncaring universe.

Why would you jump to those kinds of conclusions? They do not follow from a scenario where everything our brain is capable of ultimately derives from operations at a molecular level, but the brain as a system is capable of far more complex behavior than its components (thoughts, decision making, moral judgement, etc.). I don't know of any other way to state this simple point that I have been trying to make all along. It simply is not possible to deny that a purely materialistic description for the brain is viable, given that we don't yet understand all of the mechanistic details of how the brain works in the first place.

You're not being clear, please tell me, what is the difference between a deterministic system that cannot make decisions and one that can? There must be a difference surely?

I'll just repeat what I've stated I don't know how many times already ... the brain as a working system has far more capability than its constituent parts. It has the ability to think and make decisions because of the complex way in which all the parts work together to enable those functions that don't exist for the individual components. Nothing you've put forth so far negates that simple and reasonable scenario.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #145]

Claims of pantheism don't impress. For one thing, where the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3) it amounts to saying "god created god," which I find a bit silly.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

What I find silly is the ability of anything, god included, to create itself.

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Which is a common option among cosmologists.

Hebrews 11:3 says the universe was created by god, and Inquirer wrote: "God is the universe" which implies the universe and god are one in the same thing, meaning "god created god," which I find a bit silly. Don't you?

I am unsure as to whether Inquirer meant that GOD is the universe, or that the universe was an aspect - a physical rendition/image [or aspect therein] of the immaterial GOD...

I take him at his word that when he says "God is the universe," he means god IS the universe: One and the same thing.


.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #160]

Fine, so we are entirely deterministic BUT as soon as we adopt that position we must abandon any claims that good or bad exist in anything other than a purely relative sense, hence science provides no basis for morality, torture is neither bad nor good, rape is neither bad nor good, these are all entirely nothing more than inevitable consequences of a deterministic, cold, uncaring universe.

Why would you jump to those kinds of conclusions?

Which conclusions? that the universe is cold and uncaring? that there's no basis for declaring torture good or bad?

They do not follow from a scenario where everything our brain is capable of ultimately derives from operations at a molecular level, but the brain as a system is capable of far more complex behavior than its components (thoughts, decision making, moral judgement, etc.). I don't know of any other way to state this simple point that I have been trying to make all along. It simply is not possible to deny that a purely materialistic description for the brain is viable, given that we don't yet understand all of the mechanistic details of how the brain works in the first place.

Please clarify, are you saying the brain is deterministic yet can do good or bad or are you claiming it is not deterministic yet that non-determinism can arise from deterministic parts?

You're not being clear, please tell me, what is the difference between a deterministic system that cannot make decisions and one that can? There must be a difference surely?

I'll just repeat what I've stated I don't know how many times already ... the brain as a working system has far more capability than its constituent parts. It has the ability to think and make decisions because of the complex way in which all the parts work together to enable those functions that don't exist for the individual components. Nothing you've put forth so far negates that simple and reasonable scenario.

There's no argument from me that a mechanism can perform richer functions that any of the parts that comprise it, that's not been disputed. A car can perform more functions that a door handle or wheel nut, this is not disputed.

What I am disputing is this claim that a mechanism made from purely deterministic parts can "develop" some ability to stop behaving deterministically. There's nothing in physics or the laws of physics to support such a bizarre claim. That the brain/mind seems able to do this does not prove your claim, all it proves is that there must be something other than the material parts.

Your claim is ultimately self contradictory for reasons I've given several times now.

If deterministic parts can (when assembled and organized appropriately) start to behave non-deterministically then this cannot be tested scientifically because science, theories, explanations are always, always, always predicated on determinism!

So the brain is either deterministic yet so complex as to be unpredictable (which basically does away with any idea of morality, good, bad) or the brain is non-deterministic and we can never explain that behavior scientifically because non-deterministic systems cannot have their behavior explained scientifically (because they do not obey any laws).

So you seem to be trying to use science to argue for a claim that cannot be supported scientifically (because non-deterministic systems don't obey laws).

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #165]

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Which is a common option among cosmologists.

Do you mean that it is the preferred belief of cosmologists, when it come to options?

I am unsure as to whether Inquirer meant that GOD is the universe, or that the universe was an aspect - a physical rendition/image [or aspect therein] of the immaterial GOD...

I take him at his word that when he says "God is the universe," he means god IS the universe: One and the same thing.

Well, if Inquirer wants to put a word in to help clear this up, well and good. Otherwise, it is here nor there...

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #166]

What I am disputing is this claim that a mechanism made from purely deterministic parts can "develop" some ability to stop behaving deterministically.

There is no evidence which has been tabled, which shows us that any such ability to "stop behaving deterministically" has/is/does happen.

It is purely speculation that free will actually exists. The best we can say is that the appearance of free will exists, but we do not really know if it is a real thing, or just appears to be a real thing.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Miles in post #145]

Claims of pantheism don't impress. For one thing, where the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3) it amounts to saying "god created god," which I find a bit silly.

Why? Is it due to the evidence, logic, or simply your personal preference?
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Sound is claimed to be involved [the word of God] God is not visible, therefore what is seen was was made out of God, the invisible."

If there is no thing outside of GOD, then all things which exist, must come from GOD.

The sound made by GOD could be likened to 'thought' and what we call physical reality could be likened to experiential reality created through GOD-thought.

Why is that 'silly' to you?

What I find silly is the ability of anything, god included, to create itself.

If the universe did not create itself, and it is silly to think something else created it, then the only logical conclusion we can make re the existence of the universe, is that it has always existed.

Which is a common option among cosmologists.

Some cosmologists lean that way, but as soon as we do that (one doesn't need to be a cosmologist either) we are admitting that there is no causal explanation for the universe and since all scientific explanations are causal there is not scientific explanation for the presence of the universe.

So the ultimate conclusion of science is that science can't explain anything. Isn't that odd! using science to explain that science can't explain things!

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #166]

What I am disputing is this claim that a mechanism made from purely deterministic parts can "develop" some ability to stop behaving deterministically.

There is no evidence which has been tabled, which shows us that any such ability to "stop behaving deterministically" has/is/does happen.

It is purely speculation that free will actually exists. The best we can say is that the appearance of free will exists, but we do not really know if it is a real thing, or just appears to be a real thing.

But why the reticence? You only require a special justification for believing in free will because you've already chosen (no pun intended) to believe everything is deterministic. In other words it is your devotion to the belief that everything is deterministic that prevents you from accepting non-determinism.

If you accept that there is free will, non-determinism then everything becomes much simpler, we can explain human choices as true choices of an "I" we can begin to define morality as being based on choices and we can explain determinism as something easily performed by a non-deterministic system simply by it choosing to behave deterministically.

Really, free will, as a fundamental agency in the universe explains so many things that are otherwise inexplicable without jumping through hoops and getting all self contradictory, why are you fighting this?