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.

[Clownboat]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

[Miles]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

No. It means I have no interest in pursuing reasoning that rest on the unproven existence of a particular supernatural deity in order to make free will work.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

You seem to have confused what Inquirer wrote with something I never said.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So what? What on earth does this have to do with the existence of free will or not?

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

Neither do I.


.

[Inquirer]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

Like so many here you want to argue and against imagined claims, claims and concepts I never ever made or advocated (see red), you don't want to argue with what I actually say but what you wish I had said, well this is hallmark of the strawman debater, please quote me if you disagree with me so we can discuss like adults please.

[Inquirer]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

No. It means I have no interest in pursuing reasoning that rest on the unproven existence of a particular supernatural deity in order to make free will work.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

You seem to have confused what Inquirer wrote with something I never said.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So what? What on earth does this have to do with the existence of free will or not?

That's a damn good question, I was wondering that too!

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #1]

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.

These are moral-based questions.

In relation to that, perhaps the better question to ask is along the lines of "Can mechanisms develop morals?" as this is a better reflection of the overall question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the OP Subject "Machines and morality."

Just as with all creations, they are "Machines" - and so the mechanistic nature of the universe serves as a device - but only re Consciousness.

Is the Universe Conscious?

If so, do we micro-conscious beings get our instructions from the Universe? Instructions we discover within the experience of the Universe, including matters of morality?

Can a machine teach?

Would that make the machine sentient, or can a machine be programed to teach, [implying a creator outside of said machinery] and therefore appear to be Conscious?

Is the human form an avatar [biological machine] which is itself non-sentient and gets its life/movement/energy and instruction, from a Conscious immaterial being using the avatar?

If so, does this mean that things of the mind, such as morality, are concepts injected into the physical universe?

For that matter, can the overall physical universe, be used as an avatar by that consciousness which created it?

These are the difficult questions which require inquiry and compel me to occupy the Natural Neutral position because, until these question can be answered, we cannot establish anything solid about the fundamental reality of our reality experience. We can only establish systems of belief and non-belief [Theism and Atheism] and theorize according to those positions.

Re the concept of Free Will.

[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.

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

It is self evident to me.

[Clownboat]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

No. It means I have no interest in pursuing reasoning that rest on the unproven existence of a particular supernatural deity in order to make free will work.

Sloppy editing on my part, but my response followed from something Inquirer said, not something you had said. Your words were clear.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

You seem to have confused what Inquirer wrote with something I never said.

Again, my response followed something Inquirer said in response to something you had said.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So what? What on earth does this have to do with the existence of free will or not?

Just pointing out why Christians must believe in the concept of having free will even though one Christian here claimed that it is not the case.

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

Neither do I.

I wouldn't expect such a thing as you are not a Christian saddled with John 3:16.

[Clownboat]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

Like so many here you want to argue and against imagined claims, claims and concepts I never ever made or advocated (see red), you don't want to argue with what I actually say but what you wish I had said, well this is hallmark of the strawman debater, please quote me if you disagree with me so we can discuss like adults please.

All of this was started due to something you did say and something I found important when evaluating your claims.

When Miles pointed out: "your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say."
Your response was acknowledgment. This really puts this thread to bed IMO and there is not much more to discuss.

I then pointed out for all those reading, that your reasoning is something forced and evidenced that with John 3:16. Surely on point considering the post I was quoting.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #218]

This really puts this thread to bed IMO and there is not much more to discuss.

Given the information in the video I posted, there appears to be a lot more discussion necessary...

I will post it again.

[Inquirer]

Sorry, but if your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say.

Have a nice day.

As you wish, you too, have a wonderful day.

Is this to acknowledge that your reasoning is faulty, but you don't care and will continue to employ the faulty reasoning? That is how it reads anyway.

If a person wants to go to the Christian heaven, are they justified to make 'knowledge' claims about free will (like for example: It (free will) must exist else determinism could never come to exist)? A person cannot choose god/Jesus without free will after all, which is why I find your claim that many Christians reject that we have free will extremely odd.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No free will, no choice to believe and get a heaven. Therefore, a belief in free will is a requirement of this religion when in reality, we do not fully understand free will nor know if we have it or only perceive to have it. I'm open to either (we have it, or we perceive to have it). I don't see a need to get the gods involved myself.

Like so many here you want to argue and against imagined claims, claims and concepts I never ever made or advocated (see red), you don't want to argue with what I actually say but what you wish I had said, well this is hallmark of the strawman debater, please quote me if you disagree with me so we can discuss like adults please.

All of this was started due to something you did say and something I found important when evaluating your claims.

When Miles pointed out: "your ultimate reasoning rest upon the unproven existence of some supernatural deity to make free will work then I have nothing more to say."
Your response was acknowledgment. This really puts this thread to bed IMO and there is not much more to discuss.

I then pointed out for all those reading, that your reasoning is something forced and evidenced that with John 3:16. Surely on point considering the post I was quoting.

As I said to someone else recently here, my arguments are reasoned arguments based on clear premises. If you disagree with a premise say so, if you disagree with the reasoning say so.

Talk of "unproven existence" is pointless when we are discussing metaphysics, the very concepts of evidence and proof and supernatural are all far from clear or agreed between us, arguments from "evidence" are themselves based on premises, as I pointed out by quoting Hume, so sorry the situation here is far from "putting the thread to bed" it is the very core of the discussion, goes to the heart of what we're trying to discuss.