Ethics and Reality
What constitutes ethical behavior in a nonlinear chaotic system governed by pattern recognition?
Introduction
As near as I can tell, this morning I was standing on the edge of a simulated rock perch. I was, based on my external clues, getting ready to jump into a pool some distance bellow. A sign I had “read” as I ascended to my perch indicated the depth of the water in the pool to be 3 meters. My “decision” to jump into the pool was influenced by my vision, my ability to confirm the patterns I was seeing, my ability to read a sign that indicated the depth of the water below was sufficient to absorb my jump and my body mass, and my belief based on prior experiences with water that I could successfully navigate the medium (swim) to emerge back on to land unscathed.
To the casual observer of my jump, it would have seemed like I just walked up to the edge and jumped in the pool. This wasn’t an act of computation that a computer might engage in to follow a set of rules to arrive at some sort of result. Are brains are much slower than the modern computer, and cannot take in the necessary features of the situation and perform a computational analysis in the amount of time I was observed to be standing there. One of the alternative explanation for what was going on (instead of computation) was pattern retrieval.
To me the most amazing aspect to all of this is that none of the things we think of as senses are directly experiences. Instead, our brains are very much as Rene Descartes imagines: they are in a vat (our skulls) and they receive electrochemical stimulus (neurons firing) in response to all of the senses we commonly take for granted. We do not “see” the world like a motion picture, we experience and decode electrochemical pulses that provide us with a reconstructed simulation of the world outside our skull in a way that makes use have the “experience” of that sense of the world as a series of moving pictures. I could go on here at length; if this stuff is as fascinating to you as it is to me, I would recommend Jeff Hawkins book On Intelligence or Thousand Brain Theory
Back to the pattern recognition vs computation point of view of cognition. You can disagree with my assertion if you like. You might claim that I was “pre-processing’ my jump via some sort of subconscious computational algorithm. Certainly since the time of David Marr, much of how we have thought about how our minds work has followed such a framework. However, as depicted in the picture that follows, we have research and resulting reasons to call into question Marr’s views on the matter.
Our brains, it would seam, favor tidy little cause and effect models (might have to do with why we are so susceptible to confirmation bias. In this case, I am arguing that the hierarchical and temporal nature of our cognitive systems tends to bias us towards a certain kind of thinking and reasoning. Specifically the linear kind.
Cartesian thinking has led to a sort of Clockwork model of the universe. This was in turn compounded by a Newtonian image of the world with everything arising as an effect of some cause. Through this chain of thought and reasoning, we see how deterministic mathematical models induced the pervasive belief in a deterministic world (if you doubt this, I simply invite you to find an economist or climate scientist and ask them how they are attempting to address the questions of their professions).
What we can safely refer to as "scientific nature" favored a particular class of phenomena, namely, linear ones. Tossed aside until very recently, we find all chaotic features, dysfunctions, disharmonies, and internal inconsistencies. These were eliminated from theoretical studies and experimental techniques not because they were completely uninteresting, but mostly because they lacked (at the time) what we might commonly call practical use.
Until there was a practical use for nonlinear systems, the linear case was treated as the only important one. Similarly, theories of ethics have tended to follow something akin to large Newtonian systems (highly structured, ordered, and defined) capable of producing a universally agreed upon state if enough effort were made to quantify the words and actions of individuals. From the vague notion of the uniformity of nature comes a belief that all experience can be comprehended under general nonconflicting theories obeying rational requirements and a tendency toward stable concepts and norms.
I suspect this Newtonian inspired flavor of ethics is a deeply flawed notion.
Ethics Through The Looking Glass
Our current understanding of ethics, deeply rooted in cultural norms and moral theories, often fails to address the complexities of our reality. Traditional ethical frameworks tend to offer general rules derived from normative experiences at a point in time, leading to a somewhat static and linear perspective on morality. This approach has been a cornerstone in guiding societal behavior, but it may no longer be sufficient in a world now seen to be governed by intricate interconnections and unpredictable changes.
Traditional ethical models assume a level of predictability and linearity that is increasingly at odds with the complex reality we experience. In a world governed by chaotic systems, such models necessarily fall short in terms of addressing the dynamic and interconnected nature of modern societal and individual challenges. The complexity and unpredictability inherent in our world call for a reassessment of how we formulate and apply ethical norms.
The concept of chaotic systems, which highlights the unpredictability and open-ended nature of processes, provides a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to ethics. These systems challenge the traditional view of a deterministic universe, suggesting instead a world where outcomes are not always foreseeable. This perspective raises the question of whether the factual content of science, such as the principles of chaos theory, can inform the development of an ethical code that is more aligned with the realities of human experience and responsibility.
The way we perceive and interact with the world is largely influenced by our understanding of nature's workings. However, our perceptions are often based on partial views and misunderstandings of the world's complexity. The chaotic nature of reality means that individuals may not have a complete or accurate scientific view of the world. This partial understanding impacts our societal actions and decisions, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to ethics that considers the limitations of our knowledge and the unpredictability of outcomes.
Our traditional ethical frameworks, while foundational, are not fully equipped to address the complexities and uncertainties of a world influenced by chaotic systems. It sure feels like there is a pressing need for a new ethical paradigm that embraces the unpredictability and interconnectedness of modern life. This new framework should account for the limited and often fragmented understanding individuals have of the world, while promoting a more dynamic, responsive approach to ethical decision-making in the face of uncertainty and change.
Reconciling Science and Ethics
Chaotic systems demonstrate an openness that allows for the possibility of reconciling the physical world with our human experiences of responsibility and agency. This intersection of science and ethics challenges the traditional divide between empirical facts and moral values. While it is often argued that science cannot directly inform ethical norms due to the 'is-ought' problem, chaotic systems suggest a need to reconsider this separation, as they introduce a level of unpredictability and complexity that affects both domains.
Our understanding of nature as stable and balanced is contradicted by the dynamic nature of chaotic systems. Traditional scientific concepts, when applied to complex, nonlinear phenomena, fall short in explaining the unpredictability and interconnectedness inherent in these systems. This failure to predict does not equate to a failure to understand, but rather highlights the need for a new interpretation of our concepts and their application in both science and ethics.
The unpredictability inherent in chaotic systems creates epistemic barriers that challenge our ability to foresee the consequences of our actions. This uncertainty necessitates a more careful contemplation of the effects of our decisions, especially when considering the impact of technologically driven actions that may exceed our ability to calculate their consequences. Consequently, the moral dimension of our decisions becomes more significant than the accuracy of our predictions.
Nature, characterized by chaotic randomness, requires us to abstract significant events from their contexts to understand their true structure. This understanding reveals that even small changes in initial conditions in nonlinear systems can lead to significant outcomes. Recognizing the interconnectedness of humans and their environment, we need to develop new approaches and ethical frameworks that take into account the long-term effects and consequences of our actions.
The evolving understanding of nature, as revealed by contemporary science, challenges our traditional views and demands a new relationship between humans and the universe. Recognizing that humans are not merely passive objects but active subjects responsive to their environment, we are compelled to adopt a more integrated and responsive approach. This approach acknowledges our interconnectedness with the natural world and the importance of adapting our ethical frameworks to accommodate the unpredictability and complexity of chaotic systems.
Open Questions about Chaos and Ethics
In a world governed by chaotic systems, our understanding and actions are often limited by what we don't know or cannot see. People tend to cling to familiar, seemingly secure living conditions, despite the often mistaken perceptions of nature’s modus operandi that guide our thoughts and actions. This reliance on incomplete scientific views of the world translates into technology that serves specific purposes, but we often struggle to find alternatives to linear, reductionist thinking that can't address the complexities of our reality.
Our quest to comprehend the universe involves simplifying the behavior of nonhuman environments to make them fit within the human scale of space and time. However, many elements in various fields cannot be tested in their natural state, leading researchers to reduce complex nonlinear problems to simpler linear approximations. This simplification process highlights the need for new ways to address ethical questions in an indeterminate world.
Modern science has shifted its focus to elemental and chaotic aspects of the world, acknowledging the role of chance and randomness. This shift challenges the existence of ultimate cognitive or ethical criteria with universal scope. In a world surrounded by randomness and under the pressure of unsteady options, we must adapt our style of discourse and moral reasoning to accommodate the uncertainties and disputes in values.
Chaos theory, with its emphasis on complex interactions and the unpredictability of outcomes, challenges traditional ethics and opens up new perspectives on free will and moral responsibility. By acknowledging the potential of living systems to create new responses to unprecedented situations, we should consider incorporating this property into our ethical frameworks. This approach recognizes the significant impact of small changes and the inherent variability in human and social behaviors, calling for a more flexible and responsive ethical model.
Conclusion
The consideration of chaos theory in relation to ethics reveals significant implications for our understanding of moral decision-making in a complex and unpredictable world. The traditional ethical models, heavily influenced by deterministic and linear thinking, have been foundational in shaping societal norms and individual behaviors. However, they now appear increasingly inadequate in addressing the dynamic and interconnected challenges of our reality. The reality, as illuminated by chaos theory, is one of intricate interconnections and unforeseeable changes, challenging the notion of predictable and linear ethical frameworks. This necessitates a reevaluation of our moral codes to be more adaptive, responsive, and inclusive of the unpredictability inherent in our reality.
Moreover, the intersection of chaotic systems with ethical considerations brings forth a novel perspective on the relationship between science and morality. The unpredictability and complexity of chaotic systems demand a reconsideration of traditional scientific and ethical paradigms. This new understanding underscores the importance of integrating the realities of chaotic systems into our moral reasoning. It challenges the notion of a clear demarcation between empirical facts and ethical values, suggesting instead a more integrated approach that acknowledges the impact of scientific understanding on moral considerations. In essence, the recognition of the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems compels us to reexamine the basis of our ethical decision-making, advocating for a framework that accommodates the complexities and uncertainties of our reality.
Lastly, the implications of chaos theory on ethics open new avenues for redefining moral responsibility and free will in a world characterized by randomness and unpredictability. Such a perspective encourages a shift from rigid, deterministic ethical models to more fluid and adaptive frameworks that better align with the realities of human existence and social interactions. As we acknowledge the significance of small changes and the inherent variability in human behavior, it becomes imperative to develop ethical codes that are flexible and responsive to the ever-changing landscape of our world. This approach to ethics, inspired by chaos theory, offers a more nuanced and realistic understanding of moral responsibility in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.