[raindeer2]

"moral responsibility, essential no, it cannot exist again unless supernatural is involved for the same reasons outlined above, there is no "you" making a decision, just a process."

This view is based on a misunderstanding of what moral responsibility is. Moral responsibility is essentially credit assignment [1]. It exists as a concept not because it matters whether or not you actually could have done differently before, but rather as a mechanism to teach you to do differently in a similar situation in the future. "You" is just a machine making decisions. When you make a bad decision, according to the other machines surrounding you (society) or your own brain's reward system, you are assigned blame or feel guilty because you should avoid making the same decision again in a similar situation.

To say that moral responsibility requires something supernatural doesn't make sense, since we successfully use the concept all the time. Its a mechanism for multi-agent learning.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08435

[seiferteric]

> When you make a bad decision, according to the other machines surrounding you (society) or your own brain's reward system, you are assigned blame or feel guilty because you should avoid making the same decision again in a similar situation.

But if free will does not exist then other machines (humans) aren't making these decisions either... it's turtles all the way down so to speak. You could go on to say that the entire system (of humans, society etc) is either determined or probabilistic, but still no free will exists. It is meaningless to say whether you should feel guilty or not etc. as it is just part of a system no one has any control over...

Edit:

What I meant to say is that moral responsibility exists like natural selection in evolution, it is there but we don't choose it to be there, it is part of the natural system we find our selves in.

[raindeer2]

>"as it is just part of a system no one has any control over" Define "control". A self-driving car is on some level in control over its driving. Otherwise it would not be self-driving. When discussing free will, ppl tend to use the word "free" and "control" differently than when used in everyday language.

It becomes a similar question as asking: if god or "something" created the universe, what created that something. Its turtles all the way down yes.

>"it is part of the natural system we find our selves in". Like exactly everything else that surrounds us :)

[GoblinSlayer]

If there's no choice and everything is meaningless, then why do you post here?

[seiferteric]

Well I guess I didn't have a choice, I just did :) But really I am honestly not sure I believe what I am saying here, it just seems the most logical and easiest to argue. Of course I would like free will to exist and live my life as if it does.

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, it's also related to how well we can simulate the behavior of others.

And here you eventually hit both the limitation that without abstractions you can only simulate a less complex system, and also how the information about the exact state of the system is fundamentally limited by the (quantum) uncertainty principle (which also allows the discretisation of information, via Planck's constant h) - entropy being a superfluous concept meaning just "lack of information" :

https://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo/entropy-more.html#sec-ph...

[inter_netuser]

if the "machine" is programmed to make a certain "choice", and "obeys" that programming, why is it guilty?

[raindeer2]

The human machine is not programmed in the traditional sense, it's learned to a large extent. Guilt is a signal that some behavior should be changed/relearned/reprogrammed.

The open question is why and how humans can "feel" guilt. How can a machine have a subjective experience at all? What is a subjective experience? This is the so-called "hard problem".

[guerrilla]

Because it's the source of the problem to be correct. That's it. Which part of this car is faulty? Same thing.

[lulantivaxxers]

>To say that moral responsibility requires something supernatural doesn't make sense, since we successfully use the concept all the time. Its a mechanism for multi-agent learning.

I've come to the same conclusion. Even without free will, "punishment" is a crucial tool in teaching agents acceptable behavior. Perhaps there's a meta morality question of whether the gains from that teaching are worth the suffering of the individuals being punished.