free will and moral (or ethical) agency and evolution

[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." :evilg:

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....:pfft:

(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.quantummechanicsandreality.com/Primer/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/2010/01/100114143310.htm

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_029656&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=737cd654-f74c-4dd0-bc40-c9bf6c9e5a57

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

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/08/29/from-guts-to-brains-eating-probiotic-bacteria-changes-behaviour-in-mice/#.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.quantummechanicsandreality.com/Primer/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_broadcast/72430379/100816315.html

[Koolblue13]

Every animal has free will.

[PeterMP]

Every animal has free will.

If you think a star fish has free will, then you and I have very different defintions of free will, or one of us badly estimates the abilities of a star fish.

[Jumbo]

If you think a star fish has free will, then you and I have very different defintions of free will, or one of us badly estimates the abilities of a star fish.

There are more things in heaven and earth, PeterMp, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :pfft:

[s0crates]

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.

Not to sound too cynical, but Sam Harris has made quite the career denying something I'm sure he must believe in in his heart of hearts. He too must deliberate and make decisions. That is just part of being human. Don't you think it is odd for somebody to deny in words what they presuppose in practice? Or do you think Sam Harris never makes any decisions?

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.

Perhaps, although I think we are using the word "decide" a bit loosely now. Does my thermostat also make decisions? My toilet? They too respond to their environment based on data they gather and react accordingly.

This hive-mind thing is interesting though. However I might point to something like human culture and the zeitgeist in response. If we are going to continue comparing humans to bacteria, let's at least be fair. I'm sure a colony of people makes more decisions than a colony of bacteria.

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

That is not what I said. I said increased complexity eventually leads to complex minds complete with symbolism and language, which leads to things like art, literature, law, morality, and so on. I think you need to develop sophisticated social representational systems before you can have morality.

Not to get too cheeky here, but please do not try to tell me bacteria have such systems. I'm no microbiologist, so perhaps I am not qualified to speculate too much on this, but I'm sure bacteria don't have things like law and literature.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 12:30 PM ----------

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.

I took a class a year or two ago where we discussed this same technology.

What I remember my class coming to is that this technology, like most technologies, has a potential use and a misuse. Erasing memories of people who suffered trauma like those who have PTSD could be very useful as a therapy, although I shudder to think of the evils this technology could unleash in the wrong hands.

I also worry about the unintended consequences of such therapy.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 12:35 PM ----------

There are more things in heaven and earth, PeterMp, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :pfft:

. . . and philosophy bears the same relationship to the actual world that masturbation does to sex.

[Jumbo]

. . . and philosophy bears the same relationship to the actual world that masturbation does to sex.

I can't believe that ...I have used that line, and variations thereof, myself for decades now (and with all due love for much philosophy).

< again, missing the grin smiley >

[s0crates]

I can't believe that ...I have used that line, and variations thereof, myself for decades now (and with all due love for much philosophy).

< again, missing the grin smiley >

If you have used that line then you were channeling Karl Marx (or maybe Engels).

The translation of Marx I have actually is worded a bit better: "Philosophy stands in the same relation to the study of the actual world as masturbation to sexual love."

[Kindred]

Interesting discussions. Just to throw my own perspective out there - We have free will, however that free will is, in a way, determined and shaped by the History of our learning experiences to date. All the knowledge, wisdom, intellectual reasoning, moral and ethical conditioning, etc. In a way we are a complex computer capable of making decisions. Are we predictable? Sure, based off our History, we are likely as not going to make certain decisions most of the time, but there is nothing to account for whims. That **** it I'm going to do it anyway factor. The desire to change things up or simply not care any more.

What if I'm a poker gambler that decides to roll dice and based off those dice results, it would determine how I would play - aggressive or conservative, call or fold, etc. Is this free will? determinism? neither?

[Burgold]

I think we have free will, but by and large choose not to exercise it. I think people are far less rational or conscious of why we do what we do than most believe.

[PeterMP]

Not to sound too cynical, but Sam Harris has made quite the career denying something I'm sure he must believe in in his heart of hearts. He too must deliberate and make decisions. That is just part of being human. Don't you think it is odd for somebody to deny in words what they presuppose in practice? Or do you think Sam Harris never makes any decisions?

I'd guess he'd tell you that he makes decisions, but that not by your defintion. He makes decisions in the same manner the bacteria we talked about before. His body just takes in more inputs and is more complex because of that and the interactions involved. Using the normal idea of "choice" he only appears to have choice

And let's be clear it isn't like Harris is the only one:

Cook: You talk about “abandoning” the idea of free will. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how you came to this conclusion?

Gazzaniga: As I see it, this is the way to think about it: If you were a Martian landing on Earth today and were gathering information how humans work, the idea of free will as commonly understood in folk psychology would not come up. The Martian would learn humans had learned about physics and chemistry and causation in the standard sense. They would be astonished to see the amount of information that has accumulated about how cells work, how brains work and would conclude, “OK, they are getting it. Just like cells are complex wonderful machines, so are brains. They work in cool ways even though there is this strong tug on them to think there is some little guy in their head calling the shots. There is not.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzaniga-interview&page=2

He's a professor of psychology at UCSB.

"It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago."

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full

Cashmore is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and is in the Bio Dept. at UPENN

Not to get too cheeky here, but please do not try to tell me bacteria have such systems. I'm no microbiologist, so perhaps I am not qualified to speculate too much on this, but I'm sure bacteria don't have things like law and literature.

That depends on how you want to define those terms.

Many bacteria do what is called qurom sensing. This is a mechanism by which they cause each other to stop reproducing, and therefore save energy, when resources get low.

Is this a law? It is a manner to prevent their society from falling part.

To a certain extent it seems more equitable then our system. Imagaine the up-roar if NYC passed a law saying until resources were shared in a manner that allowed everybody to do what they wanted nobody could do anything?

However, think about how much better it might actually be!

[PeterMP]

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

[alexey]

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

Why is this surprising? How else could it work?

Think of a decision as one set of neurons eventually overpowering others.

[Burgold]

Why is this surprising? How else could it work?

Think of a decision as one set of neurons eventually overpowering others.

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

Very cool. How controversial is this? Kind of think it might be a fun topic to probe on my show? Is this the kind of subject where it's fair to talk to the experimentors alone or should I find an opposition group?

[alexey]

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

I think that it is communication, in a way, communication between different brain regions... or maybe it would be more accurate to call it "propagation" - necessary activity for "making the decision" has already happened, now its a matter of propagating it through the system. Once it becomes sufficiently propagated, it reaches awareness.

Awareness is really a window into brain processes rather than the driver of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory

[PeterMP]

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

Very cool. How controversial is this? Kind of think it might be a fun topic to probe on my show? Is this the kind of subject where it's fair to talk to the experimentors alone or should I find an opposition group?

I don't think it is surprising as much as I think from solely a scientific stand point it is pretty clear that the "unconscious" part controls the concscious part, at least in these sort of experimental systems.

That is at least as science understands it, the underlying chemical/physical system controls the conscious part.

From a scientific stand point, I don't think it is very controversial (i.e. based on what is happening in the brain scientists can predict decisions based on brain activity not definitively, but at a statistically significant level before the person is consciously aware of it. There are several studies with these types of finding going back into the 1980s). In terms of the impact on philosophical discussions (e.g. what is free will and do humans have it?), it is more controversial.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

If you are interested in talking to somebody, I'd suggest contacting the Templeton Foundation (http://www.templeton.org/) (which is discussed in the Nature article linked above).

From a philosophical stand point, they are really at the head of these types of conversations, but they are not afraid to deal with it in the context of science so could probably point to different people to talk to from different fields or a person that can reasonably address the issue at different levels.

[Jumbo]

Many of the more tail-chasing matters in western culture (especially philosophy/spirituality, in which i'd include the free will--yes/no; god--yes/no topics) for the last bunch-o-centuries will rightfully remain with us, but I am more interested in shifts of framing the topic as I have previously indicated, and learning more of the mechanistic and pragmatic realities of how/why we do all we do.

One example, in every discourse, to me, motive (what drivers are in play) "beneath" the discourse is a significant factor in our cognitive processes when evaluating, analyzing, and discussing, and often is often more informative (even about the topic itself), that many of the actual merits of various argumentative points made within the discourse. That doesn't mean motive (what's "driving" us in a given matter---typically it's a "mixture", but often with a dominant key) automatically invalidates a point, of course.

As many of the recent posts address, I love the role of the detective and scientist and informed theorist (being as objective and detached as they possibly can) much more than that of the "been there/done that" philosophy/religion (from devout believer of "x" religion to "militant" atheist with all "in between") component.

The latter (philosophy/religion) has had a long time to fine-tune their arguments, with (to the best of my obviously limited knowledge) nothing really new of substance added for centuries (longer in many matters), and even the only new minor shifting/framing of matters to occur, or more complete understandings of what we may already "believe", being a result of the new info science, with all its flaws, brings to the table.

BTW, why/how we "believe" and that whole area of cognition (and not simply the rehashing of classic western philosophic themes of what is "knowledge" and what isn't) is a separable and fascinating area to me (and gets back to the "motives" topics mentioned earlier).

One of MY favorite self-centered expressions to repeat in here is my contention that between advances in genetics, computing power, neurobiology, and nanotechnology, we will redefine how we see the human experience. Speculating on over what period of time that occurs is a dart throw to me. It may be mere decades (doubtful), or still centuries (likely). But I have a sense it won't be millennium. It's a reason I am one of those who would live that long given the choice, even with it meaning putting up with all the crap that much longer.

BTW, I am not intending to go any distance in anything here, necessarily, and did think it applied to how we often frame the topic of "free will", so I was not trying to self-indulgently derail.

Now I am ready for some football!!!