Free will vs determinism in the justice system

I find the debate on free will fascinating. The belief that no decision is free of the events that occurred prior to it seems self-evident to me. I can understand the fatalism that such a belief might cause but, thus far, haven’t fallen prey to it. Perhaps it is because I think that knowledge of determinism itself is a factor that could shape societies for the better.

One interesting consequence of accepting determinism is that, some of its proponents suggest, we must also reconsider how we view the justice system. If an individual is never truly free to make the decision to commit a crime, then there is no moral case for a justice system predicated on punishing the perpetrator of a crime.

This seems pretty logical when taken at face value. I do wonder if there might be a hole in this logic however. The use of punishment in the justice system isn’t just about the individual. Although there may not be a moral case for punishing the individual, is there a moral case for punishment as a deterrent?

I suspect from a societal point of view, the answer may be yes. The actions of an individual may be deemed sufficiently dangerous to the collective good that they should be punished to achieve a deterrent effect. Of course, deciding what crimes and what level of deterrent is another matter.

Can this be seen as moral though? If one sees utilitarianism as a moral imperative, then I guess it can. This isn’t me attempting to make a definitive case either way, so much as suggesting that what may seem self-evident from an individual point of view may not necessarily follow in a society governed by external factors.

It’s something to ponder anyway.

Free will, sense of self and AI

A couple of ideas came to me this morning around the development of human-like AI.

The first thing that came to mind is around neuroscience. Has there been a study into exactly how many states an individual neuron can achieve? I recall from my first degree that neurotransmitters are released into synaptic clefts, and that action potentials deal with transmission within a neuron. This leads me to the questions:

1. What are the maximum number of connections between a neuron and other neurons?
2. Can an action potential affect the behaviour of a neuron based on its strength (or does it work more like a PC –  with on/off or 0/1 values)?
3. What are the maximum number of neurotransmitters that a neuron can use and receive?

The reason for these questions is that they could potentially be pertinent to the development of human-like AI via neural networks. They might also be a measure of the success of an AI developed using techniques like machine learning or genetic programming (though I need to understand more about all of these to know for sure).

The second idea that occurred to me this morning was around how we conceptualise a human-like AI. Plenty of philosophers and neuroscientists seem to be coming to the conclusion that free will is essentially nothing more than a convenient comfort blanket that helps societies function. What if the same is true of our sense of self?

Perhaps our understanding that we exist is nothing more than a convenient illusion? Perhaps coming to the conclusion that we exist was nothing more than evolutionary happenstance that conferred an advantage at a specific time? Perhaps sense of self is more of a tradition that we pass on through the generations by rote, rather than something that exists as a result of a human capacity for higher level reasoning? If so, might the final stage of creating a human-like AI be simply telling it that it exists, or coding in this belief (like Asimov’s three laws)?

If so, we might actually be much closer to the existence of a human-like AI than we have heretofore realised. This line of thought led me to wondering if, with the exception of a concept of its own existence, we might consider the internet itself to be our first successful AI? After all, it takes external inputs, forwards them to the correct part of its body, generates a response, then sends that response to the appropriate part of its body. At a very basic level, that sounds quite human.

You get lucky or you don’t

For me there’s two great misconceptions in our society around success and failure.

1. You can succeed solely through hard work and/or a positive attitude (be that of an individual or a group).
2. Any one individual (or group) can be blamed or lauded when you do or don’t succeed.

We were all born onto a planet that’s been spinning for around four billion years, into a species that has been around for about 200,000 years. Civilisation has been around for maybe 5,500 years of that. In all that time decisions have constantly been made and their consequences have constantly accumulated.

Our circumstances, as individuals, as groups, as a society and as a species are a consequence of more decisions than we can feasibly count, let alone comprehend. By decisions I don’t just mean what coat shall I wear today or which company should I invest in, I mean does that neuron fire at that specific moment, or does my immune system fail to deal with that particular illness. I mean every infinitesimal thing that could have gone one, two, three or a trillion ways, including every single event since the moment the universe came into existence.

When you’re facing those kind of odds, and those kind of cumulative consequences, you realise there really isn’t very much you can claim as your own where decision making is concerned. You also realise that we’re all in the same boat, making blame (or hero worship) pretty much nonsensical.

Of course that doesn’t mean you should just give up and accept your circumstances. You still have some small say in your direction of travel. Being optimistic and doing your best certainly can’t hurt. But ultimately no-one will be to blame if something you try doesn’t come off, and you can’t claim all the credit if something succeeds.

All you can really do is try to shape your life and our world as much as possible in the time that you have. In a sense we’re all doing that anyway, whether we think we intend to or not. At the end of the day you’ll get lucky or you won’t. Try not to let it go to your head, but also don’t assume anyone else has a say (and can be blamed) either.

Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman – A couple of thoughts

I just watched the video on YouTube of this seemingly controversial interview, and a couple of thoughts came to mind.

Firstly, on the right to say something that might offend, Cathy Newman was put on the back foot for a moment by Jordan Peterson’s comparison between a difficult interview and causing offence by refusing to follow a particular law around transgender labels. His comparison was slightly disingenuous in my view because there is a difference between the discomfort and temporary effects of being offended by a difficult situation (or disagreeable individual) and the long term psychological harm that may be caused by having one’s entire identity questioned, even if only by inference.

If there is research evidence to suggest that the comparison is in fact a valid one, I would expect a) that an eminent Psychologist would know about it and make reference to it when making the comparison and b) that it would have made quite a few headlines. If there is such evidence though, I’d be interested to read it.

Secondly, a lot of Jordan Peterson’s argument seemed to revolve around the idea that where we are as a society is a result of evolutionary pressures and outcomes. He seemed to take particular issue with the concept of an organised patriarchy influencing society. These for me are not mutually exclusive ideas.

The structure of our current society is almost certainly a reflection of evolution, but what he failed to mention is that evolution produces outcomes based upon chance, that these outcomes have no inherent merit, are often inefficient (the human eye for example), and can be overturned in a surprisingly short time (in evolutionary terms) given appropriate pressures.

It is therefore entirely possible that organised male dominance of females within humanity could have an evolutionary source, that this evolutionary source could in turn have led to the creation of societies that entrench male dominance (patriarchy) and also that these evolutionary pressures could have expanded to include (or already encompassed) a tendency towards domination of, and discrimination against, any group that is unlucky enough to be born into a society where they are not part of the currently dominant grouping.

It is also entirely possible that the job market in its current form could be structured to favour characteristics that are currently more often associated with one particular gender, be it due to socialisation or genetic outcomes. It is furthermore highly likely that groups within society might be socialised to fulfil particular roles and behave in particular ways that reflect past evolutionary pressures or current societal ones (or both).

It is not, however, the case that these outcomes are made “right” or desirable simply by their very existence, or the fact that they may be the result of evolution. All of these outcomes are the results of glorified chance, pure luck. They have no proven efficacy. Indeed any measure of efficacy we produce will itself be based upon (and biased by) the consequences of chance evolutionary and societal factors.

These outcomes and structures are also not inevitable. Just as evolution can influence the behaviour of individuals, so can the structure of a society influence evolution in turn. In fact, positive discrimination, a concept that seems often to be hated by those who experience it as much as those who feel disadvantaged by it, is perhaps an example of this very concept in action.

There is no reason, therefore, not to reform (or even overturn) a system that we perceive as leaving a majority of individuals in a society feeling unfulfilled, under valued and unhappy if we deem it to be necessary. Indeed, a simple drive to experiment alone should result in such change, not least because we are far less subject to the whims of evolution than we were in the past, giving us the time and space to plot our own course should we wish to.