0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: David Cooper on 28/09/2019 22:04:38Science has no model that can make sense of sentience - it looks as if there can be no such thing. If we decide that that's the case, then there can be no such thing as suffering and there is no role for morality. Quote from: David Cooper on 28/09/2019 22:04:38Protecting sentient things is the purpose of morality. Calculating morality does not require the calculator to be sentient.That requires sentience to be defined objectively.
Science has no model that can make sense of sentience - it looks as if there can be no such thing. If we decide that that's the case, then there can be no such thing as suffering and there is no role for morality.
Protecting sentient things is the purpose of morality. Calculating morality does not require the calculator to be sentient.
How do you define fundamental things? When you reach them, their definitions are always circular. All you have is how they relate to other things.
How do you compare and relate sentience to other things?
But we know the rock isn't sentient since none of its particles exhibits free will.
If any particle was suffering, it could put itself in a situation where this was not the case.
Since it isn't doing that, either it isn't sentient or the thing is completely contented.
Likewise, the motion of the particles in my body can be described by the laws of physics. Not a single proton seems to be exerting free will. Hence I cannot be sentient (your definition).
What prevents me from flying like superman? I will that, yet cannot bring it about. My free will does not seem to have any ability to override physics, yet you claim otherwise when contrasting yourself to the actions of computers that, lacking said sentience, are confined to the laws of physics.
I did not intend to debate morality from a dualist perspective. The perspective is religious (inherently non-empirical) and that typically has morality pretty much built in. I don't deny that. I just find your particular flavor of it self contradictory.
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).
Definition of sentience1: a sentient quality or state2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
Definition of consciousness1a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneselfb: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or factc: AWARENESSespecially : concern for some social or political causeThe organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND3: the totality of conscious states of an individual4: the normal state of conscious liferegained consciousness5: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
Quote from: David Cooper on 01/10/2019 18:34:12Nothing exhibits free will.I think I have misread your position. You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.
Nothing exhibits free will.
It seems that you consider sentience to be a passive experiencer, lacking any agency in the physical world. Morals are there as obligations to these external experiencers, to keep your movie audience contented so to speak.Perhaps I am wrong about this epiphenomenal stance. Kindly correct me if I've again got it wrong.
Quote from: David Cooper on 02/10/2019 19:46:23Quote from: Halc on 02/10/2019 00:04:25You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.Free will depends on an injection of magic somewhere to get round the problem of everything that happens having a cause.OK, you define free will as 1) having this external thing (what you call a sentience), and 2) it having a will and being able to exert that. This actually pretty much sums up the concept from a typical dualist, yes.
Quote from: Halc on 02/10/2019 00:04:25You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.Free will depends on an injection of magic somewhere to get round the problem of everything that happens having a cause.
You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.
I on the other hand would describe that situation as possession, where my will is overridden by a stronger agent, and its freedom taken away. You don't describe possession. The body retains its physical will and this 'sentience' gets its jollies by being along for the ride.
That said, you seem aware of the 'magic' that needs to happen. Most are in stark denial of it, or posit it in some inaccessible place like the pineal gland despite the complete lack of neurons letting their shots be called by it.
You're an epiphenomenalist, a less mainstream stance.
Why do you posit it then? Seem like the equivalent of positing the invisible pink unicorn that's always in the room. If there's no distinction between the presence or absence of a thing, why posit it?
Why might you not have many of them, a whole cinema full all taking the same ride?
Most people don't define sentience as an epiphenomenal passenger, so most don't base their moral decisions on how it will make the unicorn feel.
Quote from: David Cooper on 03/10/2019 20:56:47When I said it "depends on an injection of magic", I was ruling out free will on that basis - not endorsing it.Understood, but this is only true given a free-will definition that involves this kind of magic going on, instead of somebody else that considers free will to be not remote controlled.
When I said it "depends on an injection of magic", I was ruling out free will on that basis - not endorsing it.
QuoteI just see a whole lot of causation from the outside interacting with causation from the set up of whatever's on the inside, and every part of it is dictated by physics.That sounds like a description of semi-deterministic physics.
I just see a whole lot of causation from the outside interacting with causation from the set up of whatever's on the inside, and every part of it is dictated by physics.
QuoteIf sentience is real, it has a causal role: without that, it cannot possibly cause claims about feelings being felt to be generated. It is still just a passenger though in that what it does is forced by the inputs.This seems to be a contradictory statement.
If sentience is real, it has a causal role: without that, it cannot possibly cause claims about feelings being felt to be generated. It is still just a passenger though in that what it does is forced by the inputs.
If I feel the warmth of green, I cannot cause the body to discuss said warmth without performing said magic on the physical body which supposedly is incapable of such feelings. If it has any causal role, there's magic going on.
QuoteIf there's no sentience, then torture is impossible and morality has no purpose.Agree. So I find your definitions rather implausible for this reason. My view doesn't have this external passenger.
If there's no sentience, then torture is impossible and morality has no purpose.
The physical being is all there is and is sentient in itself (yes, a different definition of sentience), has free will because nothing else is overriding its physical will, and morality has a purpose because there are obligations to the physical thing.
I also don't think morality is about pain and suffering. Everybody that says that makes it sound like life is some kind of horrible thing to have to experience. Pleasure and pain are means to an end. If the pleasure and pain were the end (the point of morality), then we should just put everybody on heroin. Problem solved. Recognizing the greater purpose is isn't a trivial task.
QuoteMost people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.Nonsense. I don't think I need the unicorn to feel my own pain for me. That you propose this indicates that the idea is beyond your comprehension, and not just an interpretation with which you don't agree.
Most people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.
QuoteIf they believe in sentience, the sentient thing that feels is what morality is there to protect.Almost nobody believes in the sort of sentence you describe. Typically it's a separate experiencer capable of said magic (think Chalmers), or in my case, a sentience composed of a physical process (Dennett, or whoever that hero is supposed to be).
If they believe in sentience, the sentient thing that feels is what morality is there to protect.
The same magic is required for it regardless where it's controlled from.
Whatever causes something is itself caused and is forced to cause what it causes.
There is no such thing as choice in that whatever is chosen in the end was actually forced.
If you don't have something experiencing the feelings, you have no sentience there and the feelings don't exist either.
QuoteI also don't think morality is about pain and suffering. Everybody that says that makes it sound like life is some kind of horrible thing to have to experience. Pleasure and pain are means to an end. If the pleasure and pain were the end (the point of morality), then we should just put everybody on heroin. Problem solved. Recognizing the greater purpose is isn't a trivial task.Morality is about suffering AND the opposite.
Quote from: HalcQuote from: CooperMost people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.Nonsense. I don't think I need the unicorn to feel my own pain for me. ... Don't attribute nonsense to me that comes out of your misreading of my position.
Quote from: CooperMost people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.Nonsense. I don't think I need the unicorn to feel my own pain for me.
The only thing that actually matters here is that for feelings to be real, something real has to experience them, and that is a sentience. No sentient thing --> no feelings can be felt --> no role for morality --> you can try to torture anyone as much as you like and no harm can be done.
Dennet appears to be a nihilist
Quote from: David CooperThe same magic is required for it regardless where it's controlled from.Blatantly false. A roomba is controlled from within itself and it requires no magic to do so. It just requires magic if the control is to come from outside the physical realm.
If that were true, mammals would not have evolved better brains to make better choices, or to make say moral choices. We are ultimately responsible for our choices, as evidenced by what happens to those that make poor ones. Not sure what choice is if you don't think that's going on.MInd you, I agree that if the physics of the universe is deterministic, then my choices are determined. I'm just saying that they're still choices.
I thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.
QuoteIf you don't have something experiencing the feelings, you have no sentience there and the feelings don't exist either.Only true in your interpretation. I for instance never said there wasn't something experiencing my feelings. I just don't think it's a separate entity, passenger or otherwise. I'm fine with you disagreeing with it, but do you find inconsistency with it, without begging your own interpretation?
Quote[Morality is about suffering AND the opposite.I find that thinking shallow.
[Morality is about suffering AND the opposite.
Your statement above concerned the camp that I'm in, implying that pain cannot be felt given a different interpretation of mind.
QuoteDennet appears to be a nihilist A word you seem to use for any monist position. You're begging your interpretation to draw this conclusion.
Answer my question. How do you know about your passenger if it cannot make itself known to you?
The inputs are the X (inputs) that cause Y in the sentient thing, and Y then causes Z (outputs). In the course of Y happening, feelings are supposedly generated, and some of the outputs document that in some way.
QuoteI thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.I told you before that it has a causal role: the generation of data documenting the experience of sentience cannot be triggered without outputs from the sentience to inform the system that the experience happened.
I call it a passenger when referring to its lack of any useful causal role that can be produced just by going straight from X to Z
if the physics of the universe is deterministic
Morality is ... a harm:benefit calculation in which the harm is ideally minimised and the benefit (all kinds of pleasure) maximised
Quote from: Halc if the physics of the universe is deterministicIn quantum theory, physics is not deterministic (or at least, not determinable by us).
However, in mammals, I think moral decisions arise at a higher level than the quantum level - it is encoded in the strengths of synapses.
From the start I said that sentience could be a property of all particles (stuff, energy), so in that sense it needn't be a passenger as it is the essential nature of that stuff.
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.
- So the synapses driving their morality are formed with various inputs from DNA, and development before and after birth. These synaptic weights can be modified by the individual based on their teaching, experiences, and deductions.
The next step for cooperating more effectively is by splitting duties among colony members. Some responsible for defense, some for digesting food, etc. Though each cell are genetically identical, they can develop differently due to Gene activation by their surrounding.This requires longer and more complex genetic materials in each organism's cell.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2018 07:20:52So they need the ability to distinguish objects in their surrounding and categorize them, so they can choose appropriate actions.Some organisms develop pain and pleasure system to tell if some circumstances are good or bad for their survival. They try to avoid pain and seek pleasure, which is basically making assumptions that pain is bad while pleasure is good. Though there are times it could be a mistake to seek pleasure and avoid pain, mostly this rule of thumb brings overall benefits to the organisms.Avoiding pain can prevent organisms from suffering further damage which may threat their lives. While seeking pleasure can help them to get basic needs to survive, such as food and sex.
So they need the ability to distinguish objects in their surrounding and categorize them, so they can choose appropriate actions.
OK, Is Y the experiencing the feelings, or is Y the physical feelings which are noticed by the sentient experiencer? I'm trying to figure out if the physical feelings or the sentient experience of those feelings is what is causing Z, the output.
I ask because of this:QuoteQuoteI thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.I told you before that it has a causal role: the generation of data documenting the experience of sentience cannot be triggered without outputs from the sentience to inform the system that the experience happened.Here you are asserting output from the sentience, which you say cannot be done without some kind of magic that we both deny.
You say that physics is entirely deterministic, which means that output from something external to the physical system cannot cause any effects in said determined system. In your quote just above, you assert the opposite, that the system is being informed of data from non-physical sources, which would make it non-deterministic, or which makes the sentience part of the deterministic physical system, in which case it isn't two systems, but just one.
Here again you seem to deny the 'passenger' having a causal role,
If I avoid standing in the rain because it gives me discomfort, then the discomfort definitely plays a causal role in my choosing to seek shelter.
Agree that it's not a quantum thing at all. Quantum stuff always comes up because dualism needs a way to allow a non-physical will to effect changes in a physical world, and QM is where lies the argument that such external interference is or isn't feasible.
Neuroscience has shown that we can manipulate neurotransmitters to temporary disable human's ability to feel. Hence it is possible to kill a living organism, including humans, without involving any feeling of the subject (see Coup de grâce), hence not violating moral rules whose ultimate goal is to minimize pain and suffering while maximizing pleasure and happiness.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2019 09:51:18Neuroscience has shown that we can manipulate neurotransmitters to temporary disable human's ability to feel. Hence it is possible to kill a living organism, including humans, without involving any feeling of the subject (see Coup de grâce), hence not violating moral rules whose ultimate goal is to minimize pain and suffering while maximizing pleasure and happiness.You can kill everyone humanely without them feeling anything, but that's clearly immoral if you're producing inferior harm:benefit figures, and you would be doing so if you tried that. Imagine that you are going to live the lives of everyone in the system, going round and round through time to do so. There are a thousand people on an island and one of them decides that he can have a better life if he kills all the others, and by doing it humanely he imagines that it's not immoral. He doesn't know that he will also live the lives of all those other people and that he will be killing himself 999 times. If he knew, he would not do it because he'd realise that he's going to lose out heavily rather than gain.Of course, in the real world we don't believe that we're going to live all those lives in turn, but the method for calculating morality is right regardless: this is the way that AGI should calculate it. Morality isn't about rewarding one selfish person at the expense of all the others, but about maximising pleasure (though not by force - we don't all want to be drugged for it) and minimising suffering.Also, we're setting things up for future generations. We care about our children's children's children's children's children, and we don't want to set up a system that picks one of them to give the Earth to while the rest are humanely killed. Morality isn't about biasing things in favour of one individual or group, but about rewarding all.
standing in the rain ... we could simply connect the input wire to both output wires and remove the black box and the exact same functionality is produced, including the generation of claims about feelings being experienced in the black box even though the black box no longer exists in the system.
Sometimes morality is just applied to "my family", "my tribe"...