Consciousness, Determinism, and the Evolution of Morality

Consciousness doesn't actually exist.

Well, it does, but in definition only. Consciousness does not exist in the same way that the color red does not exist: it is a word to help us describe a certain concept. In the case of the color red, it is the phenomenon of a brain interpreting the wavelength that a particular photon has. Consciousness the word we give to the complex interactions of group of interconnected neurons. Consciousness does not exist without or outside of a brain.

A thinking agent does not actually "think". It's more of a live simulation of the chemical and electrical signals interacting with internal and external stimuli. You can always say you would have made a different decision, but that is incorrect: you would have always made that decision (hence the titular Determinism). But you may say, "Well, couldn't the inherent randomness and uncertainty due to quantum mechanics allow electrons to interact slightly differently and allow me to make a different decision?"

Doesn't that contradict quantum mechanics?

I'm not saying that you can predict the future. I'm saying that the current state of the universe is the only state that can have ever existed. If you rewound time 1,000 years and followed it forward 1,000 years, the state of the universe would be exactly the same.

This doesn't violate quantum mechanics. In a double slit experiment, a specific electron, once it hit the detector plate, would always have hit that detector plate in the exact same spot at the exact same time. You wouldn't be able to predict ahead of time where it would hit, but it would always hit there because it did.

But if people are just the product of chemical / electrical interactions, how can you people accountable for their actions?

We already have examples of non-living things that excise "undesirable" traits. By process of natural selection, you could say that natural selection holds bad genetic mutations accountable by preventing them from proceeding to future generations. The worse the mutation, the more aggressive the excision. Genes doesn't have the "free will" to determine if they're "good" or "bad"; it is just removed from the genetic pool if it is counterproductive for the success and prevalence of that strand of DNA.

Similarly, society can hold bad actors to account for undesirable actions. You can think of, let's say, a murderer as a particular organization of undesirable chemical and electrical interactions that must be excised from the society for it to thrive. It doesn't need free will to exist. It doesn't even need for there to be an absolute definition of good and bad. It just needs to have a working definition of good and bad (i.e. "morality"). This working definition has slowly evolved through the natural selection of various cultures with various ethics, laws, societal norms, etc.

For example, take two societies A and B. A has a self-imposed ban on murder between members of the society. If a member of A murders another member of A, that member is removed from the society (you can use your imagination). B does not have this rule. Members of A do not have to use resources, time, or effort on preventing murder: the rule and subsequent punishment are enough to quash, or at least reduce, the likelihood of murder. This allows those freed up resources and time to allow society to grow, technology to advance, etc. Members of B, not having the rule, must divert those same resources to directly preventing murder: building walls, dedicating time to patrolling and preparing, etc. Fast forward several centuries when A and B finally meet. A will likely be able to exert much more influence on B than B will on A.

So what are you trying to say?

This was honestly a stream of consciousness (pun intended). A way to get my thoughts down in print. A way for someone reading this to challenge me on my current beliefs about consciousness and free will. I'm trying to say that society would have developed this way no matter what. It doesn't matter if consciousness, free will, quantum randomness, or an absolute morality exists. (This does not give you free rein to be an asshole without facing consequences.) Hopefully, it shows that society will thrive if each of us, every bundle of chemistry and electricity interacting with other bundles of chemistry and electricity, tries to improve society, one rule, law, or norm at a time.