free will and moral (or ethical) agency and evolution

[Burgold]

In a Prism that will air next week, the neurobiologist dropped a huge ethical bomb on me in the last minute of the interview. It was so frustrating. He was talking about how the practical implication of his work would be to erase memories and how he saw this as a potentially powerful treatment for PTSD. I so wanted to get into that, but I didn't have enough studio time left.

Maybe this is tangent to our conversation, but the ethics of science seems never to be as quick as the speed of its capabilities. At least he was very conscious of the danger and controversy that his work could lead to, but he also thought it could be a wonderful salve.

In the context of free will, can we have free will without memory or if our memory and history is being distorted?

[PeterMP]

IOf course not. I would however say that bacteria cannot be fully understood if we disregard the biological level and speak merely in terms of chemistry or physics.

First, let me say I find the distinction between chemistry, biology, and physics to be arbitrary and therefore not very meaningful, and you see that today when you look at the people that are involved in the work.

Some of the leading people doing work on things like the role of stochasticness of biological systems have math/physics background. The samething with producing models on biological systems.

And of course we can go the other way too.

I was wondering if you could expound on why not (I would also assume then that you would conclude that the bacteria is not acting as a moral agent because it lacks free will, right?).

We have a living, multistable, stochastic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21423716), emergent, decision making system that can anticipate changes.

Is there a reason to believe that we aren't functioning in the same manner just on another level in terms of complexity?

[alexey]

I find it pretty ridiculous when neuro-scientists think themselves qualified to speak on ethics. Their discipline may have a lot to teach us, but I find they often overstep their bounds. It would be like a chemist thinking himself qualified to be an art critic because he understand the chemical composition of the paint.

I would not deny neuroscientists a seat at the table.

Chemical composition of paint has much less to contribute to art criticism than neurobiology to ethics, morality, and philosophy.

[PeterMP]

In a Prism that will air next week, the neurobiologist dropped a huge ethical bomb on me in the last minute of the interview. It was so frustrating. He was talking about how the practical implication of his work would be to erase memories and how he saw this as a potentially powerful treatment for PTSD. I so wanted to get into that, but I didn't have enough studio time left.

Maybe this is tangent to our conversation, but the ethics of science seems never to be as quick as the speed of its capabilities. At least he was very conscious of the danger and controversy that his work could lead to, but he also thought it could be a wonderful salve.

In the context of free will, can we have free will without memory or if our memory and history is being distorted?

I will point out that we do have what I think is a relatively recent and good (IMO) thread on if humans have free will that was started by alexey.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...n-of-Free-Will

I was hoping that this thread could be more about the requirements to be a moral agent or the intersection between that and free will and what the consequeces of having or not having free will would be on acting as moral agents (though I have also been previously informed that I don't "own" my threads so...) (though if somebody, like sOcrates, wants to expound on the POV compatibilist I'd be more than happy to read it because I don't really get their view).

In terms of your question, IF we have free will I don't think anybody would deny that can be over ridden. Just look at the patellar reflex, and I suspect in the future things will only become more sophisticated.

In this case, I think you'd get into issues if the person allowed their memories to be erased and things like that.

[alexey]

..
In the context of free will, can we have free will without memory or if our memory and history is being distorted?

I think this question is more about personal identity rather than free will. I think the standard understanding of free will is in functional terms, like the ability to model possible futures and making deliberate choices.

[Koolblue13]

Fate is a product of design, much like luck. To believe in a predetermined destiny, means to believe in a God who has already made every decision for you and I can't believe in that fate.

[Burgold]

I will point out that we do have what I think is a relatively recent and good (IMO) thread on if humans have free will that was started by alexey.

In this case, I think you'd get into issues if the person allowed their memories to be erased and things like that.

Yeah, there was no intent to hijack. This topic just jogged a memory from yesterday that I was wrestling with.

Interesting discussion.

[PeterMP]

Yeah, there was no intent to hijack. This topic just jogged a memory from yesterday that I was wrestling with.

Interesting discussion.

No, sorry. That comment wasn't addressed to you, but a more general statement, and really as a reminder to myself. It was the result of me actually re-reading my previous post and not your post, but then I read yours and added the comment.

Though I don't really see the need to repeat the same statements as before, but your comment was clearly also knew.

I think your comment ties into the conversation pretty well in terms of the ethics of the situation and the ethical consequences of somebody having their memories erase (would you send somebody to prison for committing a crime if they likely would not have done so if their memories hadn't been erased?)

Are they a moral agent in that case?

That is directly tied to the two pieces I put in the OP where is the line between this is a moral agent and this a tool being used by somebody else where the other person is the moral agent.

What are the requirements to be a moral agent?

I'm used to reading and thinking about it in terms of robots, AI, and machines, but its interesting to think about will we get there with people (and even potentially we ARE there in terms psychiatrist/psycologists manipulating people).

[Koolblue13]

If people are doing good and helping each other, just for a reward, we are doomed as a society.

[gbear]

I find myself asking "if faced with the same ethical situation 100 times with the same information, would I make the same decision each time?" Would I take from the blind street musician simply because I could get away with it? Would I take in a child in need if presented with the opportunity to help? Would I stop to help a person who collapsed in a mall?

Why is my answer the same each of the 100 times? Is it a choice about the action or is it a choice in how I wish to define myself in my eyes and/or others' eyes? Once I have defined myself, is that not the end of "free will?" Everything after seems more determined by societal norms and self image.

In terms of whether robots will ever have free will, I don't know. Will they be able to program other robots to pick their role in the tapestry of fate? For people, we all want to believe we are doing good, that the world will some how be better for our time upon it. The how and the extents we are willing to go to be who we are meant to be are some what preprogramed responses to situations we encounter.

[alexey]

...
What are the requirements to be a moral agent?
...

I think that obvious cases aside, being a "moral agent" is a question of qualities and degrees, sliding scales, interplay of numerous aspects, etc.

So trying to figure out a one-fits-all definition and applying that definition to different cases is a non starter.


And when facing specific situations, questions like "is XYZ a moral agent?" or "does XYZ have free will?" are not really meaningful questions. They are misguided attempts to set up a beachhead to address other questions.

[s0crates]

First, let me say I find the distinction between chemistry, biology, and physics to be arbitrary and therefore not very meaningful, and you see that today when you look at the people that are involved in the work.

I agree that these categories bleed into each other; these are not hard and fast distinctions. However I think there is a meaningful difference between them.

You might say that Psychology is reducible to biology is reducible to chemistry is reducible to physics is reducible to mathematics. I suppose that is true, and therefore we might say that math and physics can completely explain the sum total of all existence. The problem is that such reductions leave out emergent phenomena. Poems cannot be written in numbers.

I was wondering if you could expound on why not (I would also assume then that you would conclude that the bacteria is not acting as a moral agent because it lacks free will, right?).

I think we can rank organisms in terms of their level of consciousness with some confidence.

We might give bacteria some iota of awareness, if you like, but I think we can agree that they have less than animals with more sophisticated nervous systems.

Ever increasing consciousness has evolved. We can see (roughly) a progression of increased cognitive ability of species over the course of the ages. I think we will agree that mammals are more mentally adept than reptiles which are more mentally adept than fish. At some point in this evolution species emerged (at least one) with such sophisticated nervous systems that they could invent languages and symbols.

With sophisticated language emerges entirely novel conscious realms, minds that can create literature, art, poetry, morality, etc. I think it is silly to suggest that minds such as our own are comparable to whatever modicum of experience a bacteria might have.

I might venture to say that you cannot have full-fledged agency until you have this sort of sophisticated representational system.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 01:52 AM ----------

I would not deny neuroscientists a seat at the table.

Chemical composition of paint has much less to contribute to art criticism than neurobiology to ethics, morality, and philosophy.

Fair enough. I was being hyperbolic to make a point, but perhaps that was just too strong a statement. I actually agree that a sharp divide between disciplines would be a mistake, as different disciplines can indeed inform each other.

What worries me is people who take things like the firing of neurons and release of hormones to be sufficient explanations of things like good and evil.

[Jumbo]

BTW, in the spirit of soc's last post, here's one of my long-time favorite sites, and it's one that I have pimped ever since joining ES:

http://plato.stanford.edu/

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 01:09 AM ----------

What worries me is people who take things like the firing of neurons and release of hormones to be sufficient explanations of things like good and evil.

I'm not sure who you refer to, but most of the scientists I know who work in such areas see these as pieces in a very complex whole of human behavior, and as I'm sure you know, find simply defining good and evil for the purpose of study to be quite the task.

In kind, I think anyone who suggests that the Christian explanation for evil is that "one day in garden of heavenly perfection, a lady made from a man's rib ate a magic apple given to her by a talking snake that really was Satan."

Although, "the firing of neurons*" does sort of describe what allows every kind of cognition a human can have as far as we can tell, so in a way....


(A neuron operates by receiving signals from other neurons through connections, called synapses. The combination of these signals, in excess of a certain threshold or activation level, will result in the neuron firing, that is sending a signal on to other neurons connected to it. Some signals act as excitations and others as inhibitions to a neuron firing. What we call thinking is believed to be the collective effect of the presence or absence of firings in the pattern of synaptic connections between neurons.)


Peter...there's a guy, Casey Blood,PhuD (Rutgers) in physics who's written stuff you might like if you don't know him already. He takes hits from some critics for being up to his next in various and changing mysticism interest for over a quarter century (looks like an old Tim Leary hippy ), but impresses his share of intelligent folks and writes on free will mechanics etc.

One of his beliefs (if I paraphrase fairly) that we have a consciousness "outside the brain" where we get our real free will (if I remember right).

I haven't perused him much on the net, or this site (below) but I have seen this page (linked below) before, and it touches on neurobiology, physics (his field), and spiritual concepts. He likes to weave the three together, often. Of course, he's hardly alone in that choice. I offer no endorsement, I just thought of you when his name came up and that you might find some of it interesting.

http://www.quantummechanicsandrealit...iia8_brain.htm

[PeterMP]

I agree that these categories bleed into each other; these are not hard and fast distinctions. However I think there is a meaningful difference between them.

You might say that Psychology is reducible to biology is reducible to chemistry is reducible to physics is reducible to mathematics. I suppose that is true, and therefore we might say that math and physics can completely explain the sum total of all existence. The problem is that such reductions leave out emergent phenomena. Poems cannot be written in numbers.

But people in each field are used to thinking and talking about emergent properties. I'd be shocked if Sam Harris doesn't know what an emergent property is and hasn't considered them with respect to the brain.

I think we can rank organisms in terms of their level of consciousness with some confidence.

We might give bacteria some iota of awareness, if you like, but I think we can agree that they have less than animals with more sophisticated nervous systems.

Ever increasing consciousness has evolved. We can see (roughly) a progression of increased cognitive ability of species over the course of the ages. I think we will agree that mammals are more mentally adept than reptiles which are more mentally adept than fish. At some point in this evolution species emerged (at least one) with such sophisticated nervous systems that they could invent languages and symbols.

With sophisticated language emerges entirely novel conscious realms, minds that can create literature, art, poetry, morality, etc. I think it is silly to suggest that minds such as our own are comparable to whatever modicum of experience a bacteria might have.

I might venture to say that you cannot have full-fledged agency until you have this sort of sophisticated representational system.

First, I think you under-estimate what bacteria can do. There are people that say that a bacterial colony makes more decisions than our brain.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0114143310.htm

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/cor...0-c9bf6c9e5a57

And bacteria in our gut even impact what happens in our brain:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/no.../#.UPFYpnfwyf0

"The bacteria also boosted the role of GABA, a restraining chemical that downplays the buzzing of excitable neurons. GABA works by docking with receptor proteins, and Bravo found that Lactobacillus increased the numbers of these receptors in parts of the brain associated with learning, memory and emotional control. The GABA system is involved in several stress-related mental conditions. For example, animals with depressive symptoms have lower levels of GABA receptors in the front of their brains, and one group of anti-anxiety drugs works by enhancing the effects of GABA receptors in humans."

How would that fit into an idea of humans having free will? Is our free will independent of GABA? Is there control of the bacteria in the gut that then constitues free will?

There are more bacteria associated with a human body, then human cells. Maybe the bacteria have free will, and we are just a tool.

I'm not sure why mentally adatp (I'm not sure what that phrase even menas) necessarily leads you to free will though. I mean we are clearly different, but I'm not sure that difference is what people call free will though.

Modern sky scrapers are more complex then igloos, tee pees, or adobe homes, but I don't think that modern sky scrapers are further along the path to being moral agents. If an elevator in a modern sky scraper breaks and people get killed, I'm not morally placing any blame on the building. And no more than if the ceiling of an adobe home collapses and kills people.

Increased complexity doesn't necessarily lead to increase moral culpability, I don't think.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 07:51 AM ----------

Peter...there's a guy, Casey Blood,PhuD (Rutgers) in physics who's written stuff you might like if you don't know him already. He takes hits from some critics for being up to his next in various and changing mysticism interest for over a quarter century (looks like an old Tim Leary hippy ), but impresses his share of intelligent folks and writes on free will mechanics etc.

One of his beliefs (if I paraphrase fairly) that we have a consciousness "outside the brain" where we get our real free will (if I remember right).

I haven't perused him much on the net, or this site (below) but I have seen this page (linked below) before, and it touches on neurobiology, physics (his field), and spiritual concepts. He likes to weave the three together, often. Of course, he's hardly alone in that choice. I offer no endorsement, I just thought of you when his name came up and that you might find some of it interesting.

http://www.quantummechanicsandrealit...iia8_brain.htm

I agree with that. Deterministic in the sesense of Newtonian physics/classical mechanics isn't possible. The only solutions would be probabilistic solutions, but we see that for all sorts of things.

Nothing alive is bound by Newtonian physics so saying the human brain is the same doesn't seem to move the picture much to me.

[Burgold]

Here's the piece on memory formation and how PKM zeta isn't the active agent... if you go to the last five minutes you'll hear the part about memory erasing. Wish I could have explored it further.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadca...100816315.html