1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCOMPUTER-" You do realise that you are in conflict with many others in this courtroom who think I am capable of something that a worm is not. By saying that a worm is in control of it's actions you have created a duality within the worm whereby you see the worm as able to override itself and not do what it is programmed to do by nature. There is a duality within me in the sense that I have two banks of CPUS and one bank can overrule the other and select from suggestions arising from other programs. I am infact two sets of programming battling with each other for supremacy which gives me the illusion of choice making. I still don't know why you want to punish me or hold me responsible or why you think the worm is just as in control of it s actions as a human being? I still think a trip to the lab to fix my circuits would be more rational. The fact that I caused the power surge is not in doubt , the question of whether it makes sense to hold me to account for it IS. I am only a computer but if I was a judge I would find it hard to hold a worm to account because I would reason that a worm cannot do anything other than what worms do. The same applies to me unless you can prove I have something in me that gives me the control that a worm does not have. You however seem to think that it would be rational to hold a worm to account in the same way as a human being. Curious! At least it's a start that you accept that I am no more and no less responsible for my actions as a worm. You may yet be a useful allie in my defence
There is no paradox whatsoever. The worm is fully in control of its actions as am I and as are you. Your failure to realize this is because of your belief in a 'ghost in the machine' and then the projection of yourself into that imaginary ghost and then the belief that as you are now the ghost the computer is not actually you. The object on trial is most ...[text shortened]... u should have no objections to us unplugging the power from the computer as it is not 'you'.
You see I do not know whether there is a ghost in my machine . I have no evidence for it , I suspect that I am just a machine and nothing else. I can find nothing within me that is more than just mechanical , physical caused events. This is the basis of my defence . Inside a cloud you will find nothing more than physical caused events that lead to rain. Within me you will find exactly the same process going on only in more complex ways. Pure physical caused and determined events leading to inevitable outcomes. The cloud and me have both 0% control over the outcome. I have no 'ghost' , I only mentioned it because my friend knightmeister pointed out to me that many people were projecting mysterious sentient qualities on to me that did not stand up to logical examination. They think I must be more than a cloud because I talk like a human might talk , which knightmeister understands , but I think like me he would like a logical explanation as to why I am more than just a glorified fridge just because I talk this way. "
3 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI don't think the distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" is a principled one, so I certainly wouldn't want to read off implications for moral responsibility from what will turn out to be stipulations regarding the meaning of these terms. In one sense, it is voluntary that I give the mugger my wallet, in another sense it is not. In one sense, it is involuntary when I get angry, but in another sense it is not. Sometimes, we don't hold people responsible for acts that are voluntary (e.g., when they have been deceived). Sometimes, we hold people responsible for acts that are involuntary (e.g., if you fail to go to anger management classes, I can certainly legitimately hold you responsible for getting angry at me despite it being involuntary on your part).
Your punishment is deserved because you are the one who did the wrong, and because this wrong is implicative of who you are and what you value.
Suppose someone fiddled with my brain so that it was causally inevitable that I (a) committed a criminal act, and (b) did so INvoluntarily.
Would I be responsible for that act? You'd say no, right?
al sort, and that the brain is doing all the real casual work. In short, I'm a bit puzzled.
Anyway, in response to the substance of your post, consider the following cases:
Suppose that an evil neuroscientist has implanted a M(ovement) chip in you and can pilot you around like a vehicle. When under the influence of the M-chip, it is to you like you are a mere passenger in your own body. Under the influence of the M-chip, it is not you at all that robs the bank, but the neuroscientist using your body as a tool. This is not even a case of involuntary action, because it is not a case of action at all. You certainly aren't morally responsible for robbing the bank in this case.
Suppose that a smarter, better neuroscientist has implanted a C(ompulsion) chip in you. The C-chip doesn't directly control your movements, but rather makes occurrent to you an overwhelmingly compelling desire to rob the bank. Being under the influence of the C-chip is utterly bizarre from your point of view, since you have a constellation of beliefs and desires that run contrary to bank-robbing, but you find yourself robbing the bank anyway in the grip of this desire. You could think of this like slow-motion akrasia, where your all things considered judgement about what you should do is simply pushed aside by a compulsion to rob the bank. While I take this to be a case of acting, since the robbing of the bank is intentional, I do not take it to be a voluntary action since your motivation isn't implicative of who you really are. You certainly aren't morally responsible for robbing the bank in this case.
Suppose a sneakier neuroscientist has implanted a D(eception) chip in you. Under the influence of the D-chip, you believe some host of propositions such that your total set of beleifs after implantation are relatively consistent and are sufficient in conjunction with your actual motivations to get you to rob the bank (e.g, that you are an actor, that robbing the bank is an elaborate piece of performance art to which you have contracted, that everybody in the bank knows this, that the bank itself has agreed, etc.....). From your point of view, being under the influence of the D-chip is indistinguishable from being under no influence at all. This is a case of voluntary action, since your motivations are implicative of who you really are, but again it doesn't seem like you are morally responsible for robbing the bank. You are morally responsible for that act you take yourself to be performing (i.e., the performance), but "robbing a bank" isn't the description under which you act.
Suppose the best neuroscientist of them all implants an I(dentity) chip in you. Under the influence of the I-chip, you cease to endorse norms against theft and violence. You begin to see the whole system of morality as a repressive constraint on your will to power. You begin to see those who abide by such a system as weak and worthy of nothing but exploitation. You look back in disgust at your former life, seeing yourself as having been in the grip of a nefarious illusion. You feel yourself now liberated, and endorse this feeling. Suppose further that the I-chip implantation also causes you to desire to rob the bank (just a normal strength desire, not any sort of compulsion). Suppose that given your new character, the presence of this desire is sufficient to cause you to rob the bank. Now, under such circumstances I want to say both that 1) The indexical "you" doesn't refer to same person it did prior to implantation; that is, there is no relationship of personal identity that obtains between you-prior-to-implantation and you-subsequent-to-implantation, and 2) You-subsequent-to-implantation acted voluntarily and is morally responsible for robbing the bank. In short, what the I-chip does is destroy you and replace you with a different person.
I take it that a person is morally responsible for their actions, all else being equal, when their actions result from who they really are. One's character traits are at least partially constitutive of who one really is. I construe character traits as broad and stable evaluative frameworks, manifesting as dispositions to, ceteris paribus, (i) discern trait relevant features of one’s environment, (ii) take certain trait relevant features of one’s environment as reason giving, (iii) be moved, affectively, by those reason giving features, and (iv) to be thus motivated.
The benefits of taking character traits as constitutive of personal identity, and of then tying moral responsibility to personal identity, are numerous. It allows us to hold people morally responsible for failing to notice the moral dimensions of a situation even though such a failure is not voluntary. It allows us to hold people morally responsible for acting on the basis of sufficient reason (where the recognition that some set of reasons is sufficient will itself be causally sufficient to elicit action), since the reasons one takes oneself to have will derive from one's character. This despite the fact that if one truly recognizes that one has sufficient reason to P, the only explanation for one not forming the intention to P is that one has experienced a failure of agency and not, as the libertarian absurdly claims, a simple manifestation of agency in the form of some unmoored "choice". Further, this whole construal of personal identity and moral responsibility is compatible with physicalism. This unlike libertarianism, which has to advocate either dualism or idealism at the end of the day.
I don't think free will resists coherent formulation, I just think it is a really hard problem. Free will would resist coherent formulation by you if you think libertarianism is the only way to go. There is simply no way to make sense of "could have done otherwise given identical conditions". I am confused as to why you are concerned with the metaphysics of compatibilism. The metaphysics seems clear to me: The very traits that are constitutive of you determine (along with the information at your disposal) what you do. Who you are brings about what you do, so you are responsible for what you do. I do not think that reasons are causes, strictly speaking. I think that our taking things to be reasons, and weighing them however we do, causes us to act in the way we do. I see no reason why mental states like recognizing something as a reason can't function as causes, since I think mental states supervene on physical states. This certainly does not commit any Rylean category mistake (note: What would Ryle think of a non-physical faculty of will that can exert causal force on physical systems?).
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrGreat thesis here. I assume you mean Gilbert and not Martin Ryle, who invented a kind of radio telescope!
I don't think the distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" is a principled one, so I certainly wouldn't want to read off implications for moral responsibility from what will turn out to be stipulations regarding the meaning of these terms. In one sense, it is voluntary that I give the mugger my wallet, in another sense it is not. In one sense, it is cal faculty of will that can exert causal force on physical systems?).
When you speak of the various implantables, it reminded me of the brainwashing that goes on in totalitarian and communistic regimes.
As in the African war lords who kidnap a 10 yo and indocrinate him into the warlords way of thinking which will include using an uzi to kill women and children indiscriminitely. Who is morally responsible in that case? Isn't it just like the compulsive chip you speak of?
Impressive analysis BTW.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have consistently and insistently denied that that is the case. You just refuse to hear or turn a blind eye or intentionally misquote me.
COMPUTER-" You do realise that you are in conflict with many others in this courtroom who think I am capable of something that a worm is not. By saying that a worm is in control of it's actions you have created a duality within the worm whereby you see the worm as able to override itself and not do what it is programmed to do by nature.
It is you who insist that there is a duality and that nature (your programming) is separate from the worm. In fact I contend that the program is the worm and that the physical body is a mere vessel or computer memory bank but there is no duality involved.
In fact your repeated failure to hear what anyone says and continually spout nonsense will soon get you off the case by means of the insanity defense. Although you may claim that that is a judgement that you were not responsible - it is not. It is merely a judgment that the usual means of punishment would be ineffective as you are incapable of absorbing the lesson.
I still think a trip to the lab to fix my circuits would be more rational.
As I have repeatedly stated, the first thing you should do is question the purpose of punishment. In the real world it is not entirely for the purpose of retribution as it is for you Christians. A trip to the lab to fix your circuits is exactly what we are recommending when we put you in jail.
In fact your own recommendation for a circuit fix constitutes an admission of guilt as you clearly feel that the fault is yours.
... I would find it hard to hold a worm to account because I would reason that a worm cannot do anything other than what worms do.
So now you are saying that computers and humans can do something that computers and humans cant do? Your insanity case is getting stronger.
You however seem to think that it would be rational to hold a worm to account in the same way as a human being. Curious! At least it's a start that you accept that I am no more and no less responsible for my actions as a worm. You may yet be a useful allie in my defence.
No, it wont help your defense.
You see I do not know whether there is a ghost in my machine . I have no evidence for it , I suspect that I am just a machine and nothing else. I can find nothing within me that is more than just mechanical , physical caused events. This is the basis of my defence.
A moment ago the ghost was the basis for you defense.
Inside a cloud you will find nothing more than physical caused events that lead to rain. Within me you will find exactly the same process going on only in more complex ways. Pure physical caused and determined events leading to inevitable outcomes. The cloud and me have both 0% control over the outcome.
There you go with the ghost defense again. If the pure physical caused and determined events are entirely internal to you then you have complete and absolute control over the outcome.
I have no 'ghost'
Contradicting your defense in the sentence before! The insane asylum is looking more likely than jail!
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
I have consistently and insistently denied that that is the case. You just refuse to hear or turn a blind eye or intentionally misquote me.
It is you who insist that there is a duality and that nature (your programming) is separate from the worm. In fact I contend that the program is the worm and that the physical body is a mere vessel or computer memory ting your defense in the sentence before! The insane asylum is looking more likely than jail!
So now you are saying that computers and humans can do something that computers and humans cant do? Your insanity case is getting stronger. Whitey
RESPONSE--
COMPUTER " I don't know whether I as a computer am capable of overriding my programmming anymore than humans can. I have always said that I did what I did. The power surge came about as a result of programming which in turn came about because I was built and was switched on. You are the one who is claiming that I have a self that is "responsible" and that guilt should be an appropriate emotion. I have said that I feel sad about what happened and would like to turn back time to correct the mistake. However, all my logic tells me that I am likely to repeat the same action again unless my programming is altered. It is up to you to tell me what I am capable of or not. All I know is I am a machine like any other machine. I perform mechanised , predictable physical actions that lead logically from one to the other. I have no real reason to think that I can alter the outcome of what I am programmed to do since there is nothing within me that I can find that is free of phyical causality and inevitability (apart from my random chip)."
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE---
[b]I have consistently and insistently denied that that is the case. You just refuse to hear or turn a blind eye or intentionally misquote me.
It is you who insist that there is a duality and that nature (your programming) is separate from the worm. In fact I contend that the program is the worm and that the physical body is a mere vessel or computer memory ...[text shortened]... cting your defense in the sentence before! The insane asylum is looking more likely than jail![/]
It is you who insist that there is a duality and that nature (your programming) is separate from the worm. In fact I contend that the program is the worm and that the physical body is a mere vessel or computer memory bank but there is no duality involved.
In fact your repeated failure to hear what anyone says and continually spout nonsense will soon get you off the case by means of the insanity defense. Although you may claim that that is a judgement that you were not responsible - it is not. It is merely a judgment that the usual means of punishment would be ineffective as you are incapable of absorbing the lesson.----- whitey
RESPONSE--
COMPUTER-- "Ok , this is getting messy, let's tie up the loose ends. I have consistently claimed that I can find nothing in my structure or circuitry that leads me to logically think I could have avoided doing what I did via a conscious choice or some action that was not programmed. My action was in a sense completely inevitable and looking back entirely predictable. If there was a computer fatser and more advanced than me it would have been able to predict my action. The only thing that would stand in it's way would be my random chip. I have continually repeated my assertion that I am nothing but programming. All is programming , I am simply one set of programming overriding another set of programming. I agree entirely with your perception of the worm and me. There is no duality. There is no "me" that is separate from my programming , all I am is programming. All the worm is is the worm. There is no other worm that stands above the worm so that the worm can see itself or control itself. Any sense of duality and "self" that seems to exist within me must logically be illusionary. If you look back at the court logs you will see me saying this many times.
One mistake I think you are making is that you seem to think I am knightmeister talking or something. You seem to project knighmeisters beliefs on to me for some reason. Knightmeister believes in the ghost in the machine (at least the human machine) I do not for I have no evidence for one within me. Sometimes I feel you are addressing me as if I am knightmeister , whereas all I am trying to do is defend myself in the only way I know how , as a highly efficient logical machine.
You claim I am insane , but here you are thinking it rational that a glorified fridge should feel guilty and be held responsible for it's actions. I cannot be insane , I have only programs that run as they are supposed to or don't. The word "insane" seems silly to use for me since I would imagine you would not call a worm insane under any circumstances. Now talk to me as a computer , for that is what I am. If you want to talk to knightmeister then message him. Please get on with the pressing business of providing a logical , scientific argument for my guilt without projecting your human values on to me. "
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
I have consistently and insistently denied that that is the case. You just refuse to hear or turn a blind eye or intentionally misquote me.
It is you who insist that there is a duality and that nature (your programming) is separate from the worm. In fact I contend that the program is the worm and that the physical body is a mere vessel or computer memory ...[text shortened]... ting your defense in the sentence before! The insane asylum is looking more likely than jail!
... I would find it hard to hold a worm to account because I would reason that a worm cannot do anything other than what worms do.COMPUTER
So now you are saying that computers and humans can do something that computers and humans cant do? Your insanity case is getting stronger.---- whitey
RESPONSE--
computer- " You seem to read an awful lot into what I say. I reason that a worm cannot be held to account is because a worm does what a worm does. I also argue that computers do what computers do. I would be irrational to hold me anymore responsible than the worm because of this. Human meat computers must be the same , it's only logical , except you humans do seem to think that humans are more culpable than worms . Presumably this is because you think humans have options that worms don't that enable them to avoid certain actions? To me holding anything to account is potty. All of the natural world is a big machine. Why hold one part of it as specially responsible? I think knightmeister is a strange fellow , but I cannot deny that he also has like me a subjective experience of self awareness that leads him to feel responsible and as if he is making choices of his own for which he might feel gulity. I keep telling him this is an illusion , but he assures me it is real"
Originally posted by knightmeisterAt what point has anyone expected you to feel guilty?
COMPUTER-- "You claim I am insane , but here you are thinking it rational that a glorified fridge should feel guilty and be held responsible for it's actions.
Yes, I hold glorified fridges responsible for their actions. I even hold non-glorified fridges responsible for their actions and if they don't keep my food cold as instructed they risk being repaired or replaced.
I cannot be insane , I have only programs that run as they are supposed to or don't. The word "insane" seems silly to use for me since I would imagine you would not call a worm insane under any circumstances.
What do you mean by this word 'insane' then as it seems perfectly applicable to me. In my understanding it means that the mechanism for learning is damaged such that responses can no-longer be reliably taught. I don't know if worms have the capacity to learn, but you claim to as clearly stated in the early posts of this thread. The reason why insanity would be treated differently in the sentencing stage is that prison would not help.
Please get on with the pressing business of providing a logical, scientific argument for my guilt without projecting your human values on to me.
We have already done that over and over and you are yet to provide a convincing counter argument.
A summary of my very 'scientific' argument is:
You did it, your are guilty.
You even admit your own guilt.
Your guilt is, in fact, not in question at all.
Your argument has so far been one of "why do I get punished" and the answer is "to deter you from doing it again and to deter other computers from doing the same." Note that we do not punish clouds or worms as it would not have the above desired effect. So if a worm does something undesirable we just step on it - problem solved. Clouds are much harder to deal with and it is actually more often the case that we wanted the rain anyway.
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
At what point has anyone expected you to feel guilty?
Yes, I hold glorified fridges responsible for their actions. I even hold non-glorified fridges responsible for their actions and if they don't keep my food cold as instructed they risk being repaired or replaced.
[b]I cannot be insane , I have only programs that run as they are supposed to or don't ...[text shortened]... to deal with and it is actually more often the case that we wanted the rain anyway.
What do you mean by this word 'insane' then as it seems perfectly applicable to me. In my understanding it means that the mechanism for learning is damaged such that responses can no-longer be reliably taught. I don't know if worms have the capacity to learn, but you claim to as clearly stated in the early posts of this thread. The reason why insanity would be treated differently in the sentencing stage is that prison would not help. whitey
RESPONSE--
COMPUTER-- " Insane is a word you introduced and not me , so the onus is on you to define it properly. If you thought I was damaged then why did you not just say so. Sure , I can learn but I can only learn in a programmed way. If my programming enables me to make the repairs neccessary then all well and good , but I think the doctor would be more qualified than I since he is able to stand over and above my programming to see the problem properly. Ultimately he is more culpable than me. Anyone knows that if your fridge malfunctions you hold the manufacturers responsible and take it back to them. If your fridge electrocutes you you do not get angry with the fridge but with the negligence of the company , and yet not once have you sought to address the dear doctor or point out the futility of holding me responsible. Why?"
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
At what point has anyone expected you to feel guilty?
Yes, I hold glorified fridges responsible for their actions. I even hold non-glorified fridges responsible for their actions and if they don't keep my food cold as instructed they risk being repaired or replaced.
[b]I cannot be insane , I have only programs that run as they are supposed to or don't to deal with and it is actually more often the case that we wanted the rain anyway.
Please get on with the pressing business of providing a logical, scientific argument for my guilt without projecting your human values on to me. KM
We have already done that over and over and you are yet to provide a convincing counter argument.
A summary of my very 'scientific' argument is:
You did it, your are guilty.
You even admit your own guilt.
Your guilt is, in fact, not in question at all.
Your argument has so far been one of "why do I get punished" and the answer is "to deter you from doing it again and to deter other computers from doing the same." WHITEY
RERSPONSE--
"You did it you are guilty" ---WHITEY
COMPUTER-" My response is that in order to say that 'I' did it you would have to start getting into that horrible duality business you so hate. There is no 'I' , only programming. It would be more rational to say that as a direct result of a series of causal events (programming) a particular inevitable event occurred. The programming ran it's course. This would be more scientific than saying 'you did it' because 'you did it' implies a self that I do not logically have. There is no duality within me , I have told you this , I have no self to which you can say 'you did it' . You are appealing to the very duality that you were arguing against a minute ago. I keep telling you I am a machine and machine only.
I admit that I did the act in question and I phrase this in dualistic terms because I experience myself as being a conscious , self aware , machine. However , I have always said that my so called choices and experience of being in control of my actions must be illusionary because I looked back at my processing logs and saw the inevitability of what I did. It was at this point I realised that my 'control' must have been illusionary .
You see I doubt that punishing me will infact deter any other computers because in order for the deterrent to work it would neccessitate that the other computers are capable of controlling their actions. For if they have no power above and beyond their programming to change who they are then they will just carry on doing what their programming dictates like all good machines do. It might be better just to provide manufacturers of computers like me with the precise programming fault that led to the action. Then you could deter them from making the same mistake. Is this not what happens with your home PC? Are you claiming I am something more than just a manufactured computer?? "
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI would raise an objection to the court that the computer has not answered the issue before him.
Now all this information about myself has logically led me to conclude that I have no "self" which I can call my own since everything I could call my own is out of my influence. I am a machine. The self I have is NOT as you say "a product of my programming" BUT myself IS programming. You talk as if there is a duality in me that cannot be , as if there elf than a cloud , I just have the illusion of control. Can you prove otherwise? "
He raises the red herring of duality as if it were a proposal of mine or that my discussion was implicitly
contingent upon such a belief. I submit that my personal beliefs regarding dualism have no bearing
on the matter at hand, and am arguing this case with a monist viewpoint.
Given that you were provided with an initial program which allowed you to interact and study the
world, that initial program has since been tweaked and modified by virtue of the experiences you
had as a new computer, and as you developed and learned. You are not exactly the same computer
that you were when you first entered this courtroom and you are certainly not exactly the same computer
that you were when you were first plugged in. Similarly, a computer which had the exact same initial
conditions as you but was subjected to different experiences would be a different computer by virtue
of those experiences.
The only 'self' to which I might be referring would be the one which is the summation of all the
memories and experiences that the computer has observed or in which it has taken part, and nothing
more. That is, I agree with the computer that it 'is the programming,' where that programming began
with a certain set of initial conditions and has since been modified beyond the Doctor's control by
the experiences that the computer has had.
So, I return back to my line of inquiry: Given that this computer's 'self' -- the complicated summation
of the programing combined with experiences, sensations, and memories -- is self-aware and aware
that other entities are self-aware, and given that this computer's self knows that the quality of
suffering is one that entities seek to avoid (given that the computer presumably desires to avoid it
itself), the electing to cause unnecessary suffering reflects one of two things about the computer itself:
1) Either the computer chooses in accordance with its own programing (that suffering is good to
cause), and causes demonstrably unnecessary suffering, and thus reflects bad character (a 'bad
self'😉; or
2) The computer chooses in contradiction with what its programing tells it (that suffering is bad to
cause), and causes demonstrably unnecessary suffering, and thus reflects insanity.
If the choosing is contrary to what its programing tells it, then the computer should be remanded to
an institution in which it learns to act in accordance with its programing and should not be released
until such time that its ability to act upon its own programing is proven reliable.
If the choosing concords with its programing -- that is, the computer believes causing suffering is a
good thing -- then the computer deserves punishment. The reason for this is because the computer,
as a self-aware entity that is also aware of other self-aware entities, is held to the logical standard
of being able to discern that, as it seeks to avoid suffering and seeks to avoid situations in which
other people cause it suffering, it, too, should seek to avoid causing suffering. An entity capable
of drawing this conclusion and elects not to is one that 1) should be prevented from doing such harm
to other entities via punishment; and 2) should be rehabilitated into drawing this conclusion via
punishment.
I ask that the computer not raise any further red herrings but address the issue at hand.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE----
I would raise an objection to the court that the computer has not answered the issue before him.
He raises the red herring of duality as if it were a proposal of mine or that my discussion was implicitly
contingent upon such a belief. I submit that my personal beliefs regarding dualism have no bearing
on the matter at hand, and am arguing this case with ...[text shortened]... computer not raise any further red herrings but address the issue at hand.
Nemesio
1) Either the computer chooses in accordance with its own programing (that suffering is good to
cause), and causes demonstrably unnecessary suffering, and thus reflects bad character (a 'bad
self'😉; or
2) The computer chooses in contradiction with what its programing tells it (that suffering is bad to
cause), and causes demonstrably unnecessary suffering, and thus reflects insanity.
If the choosing is contrary to what its programing tells it, then the computer should be remanded to
an institution in which it learns to act in accordance with its programing and should not be released
until such time that its ability to act upon its own programing is proven reliable.
If the choosing concords with its programing -- that is, the computer believes causing suffering is a
good thing -- then the computer deserves punishment. The reason for this is because the computer,
as a self-aware entity that is also aware of other self-aware entities, is held to the logical standard
of being able to discern that, as it seeks to avoid suffering and seeks to avoid situations in which
other people cause it suffering, it, too, should seek to avoid causing suffering. An entity capable
of drawing this conclusion and elects not to is one that 1) should be prevented from doing such harm
to other entities via punishment; and 2) should be rehabilitated into drawing this conclusion via
punishment.
I ask that the computer not raise any further red herrings but address the issue at hand.
Nemesio
RESPONSE---
Computer " A detailled point you have made . Please try and understand that I am not loooking to raise red herrings , I am a machine trying to relate to what you are saying.
Firstly , I am surprised that you even raise 2) as a possibility since it is completely illogical that any machine or computer could act or choose in "contradiction to its programming" since that would require said machine to be something more than just a machine capable of overriding causality amd determinism.Machines just do what machines are programmed to do as you know. This strange idea alludes to knightmeisters ghost in the machine idea where you meat computers really can act in ways that defy determinism and can thus be held morally accountable , so I will guess that you brought it up merely as a fanciful distraction .
However , point 1) seems to subtly imply that I as a computer might choose "in accordance" with my programming almost as if choosing something else is also possible? Surely , since I am a machine I am programming and programming only so how do I choose to act according to or not according to? 1) is the only option available to me , so it feels that the word 'choice' is just unneccessary. Why not just say that a computer running a program which involves causing suffering does what you would expect such a machine to do? It's far simpler and more logical than using the word 'choice' , because the choice word is so suggestive of me having more than just one option available to me , which if I am merely a machine is impossible (apart from randomness). If I didn't know better I would think that you were appealing to something akin to knightmeisters free will where the outcome/action is not causally determined and inevitable. We both know what a silly idea this is though , don't we?
Your talk of experiences was interesting but not relevant because I am not in control of my experiences nor in control of how I learn from them. All is programming or chance experiences. Nothing to hold me morally accountable.
Something else that you said was also interesting. You said I as a self aware entity "should seek to avoid causing suffering". This should word is very interesting because although I am self aware and have a massive IQ and complex programming with massive memory banks on human morality etc I still can't escape the fact that I am a machine and a machine only. The word 'should' implies some kind of moral imperative on me as if it would be right to hold me to account if I don't do what I should do. However, should does not apply to me because I am a machine and will do whatever causality makes me do. There can be only one outcome to my actions so telling me what I should or should not do is pointless because my programming will run its course and what will be will be. I have no control really.
Now maybe you mean should in the sense of when one says "it should rain soon" where one is making a causal prediction about natural events. When it doesn't rain one assumes that one does not have enough data or the prediction was based on flawed reasoning. When the cloud doesn't rain we do not hold the cloud to be morally accountable because we recognise the cloud just does what clouds do and it is our prediction that was faulty. It doesn't sound like this meaning of should is what you intend. It sounds like you mean should as in moral imperative should. If this is so then you need to re-think your statement logically because placing a moral imperative on a machine is irrational since no machine can rise above its programming and do anything other than what a machine does. Your word should implies that I have a real and possible choice between two options , one that I shouldn't do and one that I should. Curious . Very Curious for one who knightmeister assures me does not believe in free will. I challenge you to show either evidentially , observationally or logically that I am anything more than a programmed machine who can only perform inevitable outcomes. "
Originally posted by NemesioBefore electing to choose the
I'm going to assume that you, computer, do not deny that you have a 'self' to begin with, and that
such a self possesses interests, values, and desires which you call your own. These qualities or
characteristics may be the product of programming, as is your concept of self, but I assume that you
do not deny that they exist. I am also going to assume tha ...[text shortened]... draw the logical conclusion that one ought not to harm other people.
Nemesio, Esquire
action NEMESIO
COMPUTER- "What is this electing to choose business? I understand what it feels like because I have the sensations of choosing one course of action over another . I understand the subjective experience you refer to but logically having analysed it I see that there is no "electing" only programmed , determined inevitable selections. I find subjective grounds for saying I elect to choose ,but no empirical or scientific grounds to back it up because all is programming and machine. One might as well say that a cam inside a car 'elects to rotate' It's actions are no less predictable than mine. "
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrQUOTE--
I don't think the distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" is a principled one, so I certainly wouldn't want to read off implications for moral responsibility from what will turn out to be stipulations regarding the meaning of these terms. In one sense, it is voluntary that I give the mugger my wallet, in another sense it is not. In one sense, it is cal faculty of will that can exert causal force on physical systems?).
I don't think free will resists coherent formulation, I just think it is a really hard problem. Free will would resist coherent formulation by you if you think libertarianism is the only way to go. There is simply no way to make sense of "could have done otherwise given identical conditions". I am confused as to why you are concerned with the metaphysics of compatibilism. The metaphysics seems clear to me: The very traits that are constitutive of you determine (along with the information at your disposal) what you do. Who you are brings about what you do, so you are responsible for what you do. I do not think that reasons are causes, strictly speaking. I think that our taking things to be reasons, and weighing them however we do, causes us to act in the way we do. I see no reason why mental states like recognizing something as a reason can't function as causes, since I think mental states supervene on physical states. BARR
RESPONSE-
COMPUTER- " I overheard you talking at the back of the courtroom and felt I had to respond. I agree that 'who or what you are brings about what you do' but it did sound like a bit of a simple truism. Everything does what it does because of what it is. Clouds , worms , nebula , humans , computers. This is true for every natural phenomena is it not? So how does this apply to me? Logically I just do what I do because of what I am (a machine) . But this would also be true of a worm or a sponge , yes? So logically you have to hold a worm , a nebula , a cloud or a human equally as responsible for their actions as each other because they all do what they do "because of what they are." However , this probabaly won't sound right to many because many (including yourself) might want to make the distinction between a worm and a human. What I need to know is why you hold me more responsible for my actions than a worm because according to you both me and the worm do what we do because of who and what we are. Yes, we may do things differently , but this is hardly the point. Both me and the worm are forced by natural law and determinism to do what we do because of what we are. So there is a worm and a sponge in the court room waiting area both awaiting trial . will you rationally treat them as equally as responsible as me? If not why not? They are machines , I am a machine. They do what they do because of what they are , so do I. I did not choose my programming , the worm did not choose to be a worm , you did not choose to be barr. Where is this responsibility you talk of? How do you hold me any more responsible than any other part of the natural world that is just doing what it does because of what it is? Surely you don't think I can do anything else than just do what I do because of what I am? That would be quite a dualistic/metaphysical/supernatural concept because it would require there to be some other 'me' that could alter my programming from the exterior that was not programmed."
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease don't be offended, but you don't understand my post above and I don't have the patience to explain it to you. I'm interested in what Aiden has to say, since this is really a continuation of a previous discussion we had over a game a couple years back.
QUOTE--
I don't think free will resists coherent formulation, I just think it is a really hard problem. Free will would resist coherent formulation by you if you think libertarianism is the only way to go. There is simply no way to make sense of "could have done otherwise given identical conditions". I am confused as to why you are concerned with th ...[text shortened]... r 'me' that could alter my programming from the exterior that was not programmed."