Does morality -- like chess -- require significant computation in the brain?
One could argue that moral behavior is a result of deep lookahead using a powerful brain. That's because for someone to appreciate the consequences of his/her actions in complex and varied contexts, massive heuristic search is required -- much like chess.
6 comments
But most people, IMO, do not think deeply about morality, they just mimic others around them.
I guess that would still apply to what you said though - it would take a very complex algorithm to come up with the optimal set of beliefs to minimize resistance you'd meet from others in the society you live in (I believe such an algorithm would not be unlike what goes on in the minds of many people).
I guess that would still apply to what you said though - it would take a very complex algorithm to come up with the optimal set of beliefs to minimize resistance you'd meet from others in the society you live in (I believe such an algorithm would not be unlike what goes on in the minds of many people).
The mimicking could be viewed as copying heuristics from others. These moral heuristics would correspond to evaluation functions in chess.
But one could argue that good heuristics are insufficient for moral behavior in general -- sometimes massive heuristic search is required in novel contexts.
But one could argue that good heuristics are insufficient for moral behavior in general -- sometimes massive heuristic search is required in novel contexts.
I immediately think of how I did not understand Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".
I don't play chess, but it seems to me "morality" would be more complicated because there are no simple right or wrong answers. Many people would like there to be but such views often lead to acts of great evil. It's very difficult to do right by many people. It's much, much easier to have a group of people "decide" (agree) on some specific value and coerce everyone into following it, no matter the cost. Of course, that leads to enormous atrocities.
One can think of moral behavior as a game of strategy where
winning just means achieving your life goals over the long term.
One may have "become rich" as a life goal which seems to have nothing to do with morality... but it actually does since achieving this goal invariable depends on getting along with others.
Because these are long term life goals, significant computation would be required to look ahead in complex and varied situations where your decisions may have ramifications many years later.
One may have "become rich" as a life goal which seems to have nothing to do with morality... but it actually does since achieving this goal invariable depends on getting along with others.
Because these are long term life goals, significant computation would be required to look ahead in complex and varied situations where your decisions may have ramifications many years later.
I don't honestly know how to define 'moral behavior' anymore. I know a lot of people do things because they "care" about others. I'm one such person who is wired to care deeply about the welfare of others. I have also raised two ASD sons, one of whom just doesn't have that feeling of caring for others. Because neither of my sons inherently understands social stuff, I have done a great deal of explaining over the years. I have had to hone an ability to explain things extremely accurately because anything less just doesn't compute for my sons.
Like his father, my oldest son is probably one character trait short of the personality profile that produces serial killers. Yet he and I get along extremely well. His lack of caring what other people think is an antidote to me getting too concerned with what others think/feel/want from me. My ability to explain the social stuff is an antidote to his complete obliviousness to such things. He is often described by other people as a very nice polite young man. He has learned to be polite and respectful out of enlightened self-interest (as the saying goes around here "jail time would seriously interfere with his video game time").
And I have learned to stand up for myself and get the "doormat -- please wipe your boots here" tattoo removed from my forehead. I have come to believe that letting people victimize me is more immoral than "bitchily" standing up for myself. I have come to believe that agreeing to be a victim forces the other person into the role of victimizer when that may not be what they want at all. I think a lot of people (at leasts in America) see social interaction as limited to victim/victimizer interaction and many people who desire to be "moral" choose the victim role as the "better" of the two. But choosing that role denies both parties a humane, equitable interaction.
So I no longer really know what "morality" means. But I am generally less tortured by such questions than when I was younger. I do my best to figure out how to get my own needs met without making other people into victims or forcing them into the role of victimizer. It's not an easy path to walk. But it's a lot more pleasant than how I used to live.
Like his father, my oldest son is probably one character trait short of the personality profile that produces serial killers. Yet he and I get along extremely well. His lack of caring what other people think is an antidote to me getting too concerned with what others think/feel/want from me. My ability to explain the social stuff is an antidote to his complete obliviousness to such things. He is often described by other people as a very nice polite young man. He has learned to be polite and respectful out of enlightened self-interest (as the saying goes around here "jail time would seriously interfere with his video game time").
And I have learned to stand up for myself and get the "doormat -- please wipe your boots here" tattoo removed from my forehead. I have come to believe that letting people victimize me is more immoral than "bitchily" standing up for myself. I have come to believe that agreeing to be a victim forces the other person into the role of victimizer when that may not be what they want at all. I think a lot of people (at leasts in America) see social interaction as limited to victim/victimizer interaction and many people who desire to be "moral" choose the victim role as the "better" of the two. But choosing that role denies both parties a humane, equitable interaction.
So I no longer really know what "morality" means. But I am generally less tortured by such questions than when I was younger. I do my best to figure out how to get my own needs met without making other people into victims or forcing them into the role of victimizer. It's not an easy path to walk. But it's a lot more pleasant than how I used to live.