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.

[brunumb]

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

My brain processes a mountain of information, new and stored, then tells me what decision it has reached for me. I interpret that as having free will because it seems that I made the decision. My position is that in reality I don't actually have free will. That does not prevent me from reaching subjective conclusions regarding right and wrong.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #187]

I must ask then, what exactly is your position then?

Natural Neural Neutral.

is the universe deterministic or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the mass.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the mass.

does free will exist or not?

If the energy which causes mass is mindful, then the universe is created mindfully, thus is determined by said mind to be as it is, re the will.
If the energy which causes mass is mindless, then the universe is accidental, thus is non-determined, re the will.

The will can only work within the boundaries of the freedom attainable re those boundaries.

Either way, I cannot see that the existence of free will is a reality in this universe, given the variables available to us with will.
Therefore I have to currently conclude that the idea of free will is conceptional rather than real.
{same applies to Mathematics and Time} more on that here;

do you believe the universe is deterministic or not? Can I get a straight answer?

My position [Natural Neural Neutral.] prevents me from forming beliefs on any subject.
I lean toward the realization that the universe is deterministic, rather than is an accident.

the actual question I asked was "what caused determinism to exist?" you say that "we don't know" but we do know that it cannot have been determinism, logically, rationally we reach that realization.

Okay. We do know that something caused the universe. We don't know the nature of that which caused it other than it is called "energy".

IF the energy is mindful, THEN the universe was created through intent, implying determinism, logic and rationality.
IF the energy is mindless, THEN the universe was not even created implying non-determinism, non-logic and non-rationality.

Causality, determinism, cause and effect, laws of nature - if they do exist -

It appears to be the case that they do indeed exist.

cannot be attributed to themselves not unless you want to abandon science.

Then what is left would have to be that the Energy which creates the universe, is mindful.

Alright, I guess that's as clear as I'm going to get from you.

Just let me know if you need more assistance understanding my answers to your questions.
[Hopefully this isn't a case of pretending one does not understand the other in order to not have to admit the other has made a good point in the debate being had.]

Please note that you have yet to provide answers to some of the question I asked of you.

[Miles]

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

Which is why a system predicated on free will fails in reality. In reality choosing and choice are illusions concocted so as to hold determinism at bay; the insidious truth of existence, which few are inclined to look at much less investigate. For one thing, if determinism actually runs mankind, which it does, sin and salvation are robbed of their legitimacy, an idea Christians are loath to consider. In fact, Christians are obligated to a knee-jerk denial of determinism, which is understandable, they have no choice in the matter.
............


.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #193]

I don't view determinism as an insidious thing. Why do you say that it is?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #193]

I don't view determinism as an insidious thing. Why do you say that it is?

I don't view determinism as an insidious thing either, but was presenting it as it seems to be regarded by those who reject it: something that, in so many ways, threatens many of the free willer's cherished beliefs and concepts

.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #182]

So your actions are basically "the result of my brain's functions that are mechanistic at a molecular level" - no free will is involved in that case, systems that adhere to laws cannot be said to have free will.

I think you're not getting the meaning of "emergent property" as far as the ability of a brain to make decisions and choose.

I know what an emergent property is:

Emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole

You'll notice the definition does not state or imply that such behaviors are or can be non-deterministic, case closed.

You're claiming that no collection of deterministic molecules, assembled in any form whatsoever, can ever produce a system having capabilities beyond what its components individually are capable of.

Not at all, you'll find no post of mine where I make such an assertion.

As long as you keep insisting that this is case then your conclusion is unavoidable, which I suppose is why you can't stray from it no matter what. But it is wrong ... as a working brain demonstrates. Free will, moral judgements, etc. are methods of the class brain.

Well I do not and have not insisted that "this is the case".

Free will cannot be emergent, because if we can make something emerge then it was pretty obviously caused to emerge which is determinism. Emergent behavior/properties are always the result of cause and effect even though we might not be able to model (predict) it.

And again, I'm not arguing that the emergent properties are not mechanistically based at the molecular level. In my view they very clearly are, even if we can't yet describe every detail.

So why do you keep implying that we disagree over what an emergent property is?

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

Except for the case where "I chose to" is a function of the working brain just like "I thought", etc. which is my entire point. These functions can be deterministic at a molecular level just as every other function in a human body, but the integrated actions of millions or billions of such events results in the capabilities of thought and decision making. No need for mysterious external inputs.

So you're arguing there's no such thing as free will? because free will is not something that can emerge from a system that does not have free will, because although unanticipated macro behaviors can and do emerge in systems they are always regarded as deterministic and by definition free will is not determinism, they are mutually exclusive concepts.

Lets get something cleared up, do you or do you not believe that non-deterministic behavior can be emergent from deterministic components? do you actually believe that we can assemble components that always do things for a reason to end up with a system that can do things for absolutely no reason at all?

[Inquirer]

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

My brain processes a mountain of information, new and stored, then tells me what decision it has reached for me. I interpret that as having free will because it seems that I made the decision. My position is that in reality I don't actually have free will.

How did you establish that you don't have free will? that you only "seem" to have it?

That does not prevent me from reaching subjective conclusions regarding right and wrong.

Nor does it prevent me from having the opposite subjective opinions and regarding those as right and wrong, relative morality is not being questioned, absolute morality is, like torturing a child is not right or wrong in an absolute sense because all that can ever happen is the result of the cold, uncaring, mindless laws of nature - if one is a materialist anyway.

[Inquirer]

The explanation for decisions made in a system with free will is and can only ever be "I chose to" they are never the result of laws.

Which is why a system predicated on free will fails in reality. In reality choosing and choice are illusions concocted so as to hold determinism at bay; the insidious truth of existence, which few are inclined to look at much less investigate.

What does "fails" mean here? how are you measuring or quantifying failure or success?

Surely we can argue equally that denial of free will is an illusion concocted so as to hold non-determinism at bay? All you've done here is make assertions without justifying them, they are therefore simply your beliefs and if that's the basis of your position, that your beliefs are better than mine just because they're your beliefs, then we really won't get very far.

For one thing, if determinism actually runs mankind, which it does, sin and salvation are robbed of their legitimacy, an idea Christians are loath to consider. In fact, Christians are obligated to a knee-jerk denial of determinism, which is understandable, they have no choice in the matter.

There are huge numbers of Christians that deny we have free will, it seems your research here is rather incomplete.

You've also skipped over the puzzle that if the universe is deterministic then what caused determinism to exist?

As I explained already non-deterministic "will" has far greater explanatory power because free will can - if it so chooses - appear to behave deterministically yet the latter is not possible. Deterministic behavior can emerge from free will, yet free will cannot emerge from determinism.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Miles in post #193]

I don't view determinism as an insidious thing. Why do you say that it is?

I don't view determinism as an insidious thing either, but was presenting it as it seems to be regarded by those who reject it: something that, in so many ways, threatens many of the free willer's cherished beliefs and concepts

Who here has "rejected" determinism? In which post? can you show us please?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #196]

Wikipedia wrote:
Emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole

You'll notice the definition does not state or imply that such behaviors are or can be non-deterministic, case closed.

They don't have to be. You're equating non-deterministic with not understanding the mechanisms in enough detail.

Not at all, you'll find no post of mine where I make such an assertion.

This has been the crux of your entire argument throughout this thread, and a couple of others. You've claimed, repeatedly, that the ability to make decisions and choose one action over another (free will) cannot arise from the material brain acting as a system. There must be "something else." You cast this as free will being non-deterministic and therefore it cannot arise from any collection of deterministic components acting together. How can you claim you've never made such an assertion? It is your entire case!

So you're arguing there's no such thing as free will? because free will is not something that can emerge from a system that does not have free will, because although unanticipated macro behaviors can and do emerge in systems they are always regarded as deterministic and by definition free will is not determinism, they are mutually exclusive concepts.

Again ... you're claiming that free will cannot arise from a material brain working as a system to produce this emergent property. I believe it can, which is the point of contention. I don't agree with your continued argument that this is impossible, for two basic reasons:

1) A purely materialistic description of the brain's functions has not been ruled out from any scientific or logical viewpoint.

2) The supernatural (or "something else") has yet to be identified as being anything that actually exists, so attributing it as the source for something is premature.

Lets get something cleared up, do you or do you not believe that non-deterministic behavior can be emergent from deterministic components? do you actually believe that we can assemble components that always do things for a reason to end up with a system that can do things for absolutely no reason at all?

I believe that the ability to make decisions is a deterministic process based on the brain's components and subsystems all working together, but that these decisions can vary according to the thought processes any individual undergoes to weight various outcomes and arrive at a decision. If you want to call this a non-deterministic process go ahead, but ultimately it is the result of very complex interactions in the brain that create the ability to make different decisions, which is not "for absolutely no reason at all."