In defense of robots

[lunamoth]

First of all, robots will not become sentient in our lifetimes and maybe never. So I am just arguing the principle here. It is true that roboticists are seriously looking at the need to program in self-awareness, learning, consciousness, free will, etc., but I don't think that we yet have the computing power to do such a thing. Nor do we really understand how brains work well enough.

You hold that in theory it's possible that we'll make sentient robots, and I would be open to that idea. I think that when all the components are right then there's no reason sentience would not arise.

The questions you ask are the very same ones that science fiction writers have been asking for decades now (e.g. Phillip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke), and I am certainly not going to give you better answers than they. We socialize pets, and we have animal cruelty laws. To the extent that we empathize with other agencies, we give them rights. After all, God sits at the pinnacle of our social order, and he isn't even real.

When the creatures become capable of creation there's a good chance they will rebel against their creators.

 

[Copernicus]

1) Why?

Because an omnipotent being cannot logically make itself un-omnipotent. By definition, nothing can resist its will.

2) I didn't actually describe anything, so what are you attributing to me?

You said: Yes, but without free will, it would be hollow and meaningless. But an omnipotent being cannot create beings that can resist its will. That is logically impossible.

So many assumptions in so few words. How do you know what it's like to be omnipotent?

I know what the word omnipotent means. As with the word God, that does not mean that an omnipotent being can exist. It is an abstraction from the scalar concept of strength.

Well, if you're going to target Christianity, you have to take into account that we were made in God's "image and likeness." Our consciousness is patterned after His, so it logically follows that He has the same basic needs we do.

Human narcissism, plain and simple. It is obvious that all gods were modeled in our image. The Jewish version is no different in that respect, no matter what its mythos claims. Gods were a primitive method of understanding natural forces by analogy with human agency. In the modern era, we ought to know enough to put away those failed early anthropomorphisms. We are a product of natural reality, not supernatural gods.

 

[Willamena]

Theists sometimes argue free will theodicy--that God permits evil in order that we might choose to obey his will freely. There is a part of this argument that I have never fully understood, and it is that for God to intervene directly in our choices would make us all into "robots"--beings incapable of making free choices, let alone moral choices.

I have a couple of serious problems with this argument:

• Robots can be programmed to make free choices in principle.
• Our choices already appear to be determined by physical events inside our brains. That is, we are essentially flesh-and-blood robots.

Mainly, though, I just don't understand why God's presence would somehow affect our ability to choose to disobey him any more than a child is robbed of free will by the presence of his or her parent. As we all know, kids can choose to disobey even when the parent is glaring at them and muttering angry noises.

As in the other thread, I suspect your confusion stems from misunderstanding the context in which most people place self-determination. Self-determination is considered in contrast to determination. For will to be "free" means that there is no determined cause, i.e. free of any influences. If cause is determined, then will is considered not free. (Generally, will and choice are not the same thing, although I notice you use the terms interchangably.)

As to God's presence, how do you relate mere presence with direct influence? Isn't it about influence rather than presence (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument)? As I see it, the argument is the same whether the will is determined by causes or God--it is determined (caused) rather than self-determined (free of causes).

 

[Copernicus]

Mainly, though, I just don't understand why God's presence would somehow affect our ability to choose to disobey him any more than a child is robbed of free will by the presence of his or her parent. As we all know, kids can choose to disobey even when the parent is glaring at them and muttering angry noises.

As in the other thread, I suspect your confusion stems from misunderstanding the context in which most people place self-determination. Self-determination is considered in contrast to determination. For will to be "free" means that there is no determined cause, i.e. free of any influences. If cause is determined, then will is considered not free. (Generally, will and choice are not the same thing, although I notice you use the terms interchangably.)

The confusion is inherent in Christian theodicy, not me. After all, it is Christians who argue that we would be turned into robots if exposed too much to God's presence. Who knows what "most people" think? The term "free will" has several senses, and "free choice" is one of the more popular of those. But do you really believe that causes can be undetermined? What does that mean? Random?

As to God's presence, how do you relate mere presence with direct influence? Isn't it about influence rather than presence (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument)? As I see it, the argument is the same whether the will is determined by causes or God--it is determined (caused) rather than self-determined (free of causes).

But no choices are free of causes, as you well know. There are always some determinants, and it is always left vague as to what an "undetermined cause" could be. The question is whether there could be any undetermined component to choice. I do not see knowledge of God as anything more than one of the determinants that enters into the mix of making a choice. According to Christian lore, all of the other determinants are rooted in the Prime Mover--God. One of God's roles in all of this is to serve as the initial cause--the solution to the paradox of infinite regression. So he is responsible for all of the circumstances that determine our choices.

God doesn't do a very good job as an "uncaused cause" (for all except those who believe in God, however), as God is clearly a thinking being, just like us. His choices are determined by his priorities, just as ours are.

 

[3.14]

what if god created us then erassed our mind of his existance we would belief we have free will but any action he does to influance us just won't be recogniced as an act of god now

lets assume god planned me to write this now i might have wrote lolfag or something but do to long term exposure to this forum my writing style has changed this either means that god made me write in this forum all this time to change my writing style or that he picked an chose me for my acces and altered my though patterns to write this

with one i lose all free will and with the other i still retain it but i'm only able to have free will over a smaller portion of my life

 

[logician]

I've always held that we are in some sense sophisticated organic robots, and that with enough technology, not only could robot technology easily surpass our intelligence level, but also a robot could be made that was self aware.

 

[Willamena]

The confusion is inherent in Christian theodicy, not me. After all, it is Christians who argue that we would be turned into robots if exposed too much to God's presence. Who knows what "most people" think? The term "free will" has several senses, and "free choice" is one of the more popular of those. But do you really believe that causes can be undetermined? What does that mean? Random?

So if others don't think like you, they're the ones who are confused. Got it.

I believe that the illusion of the acausality of ego-related events exists. I indulge it every moment of every day, including writing in this thread as if from a point of view that I hold.

But no choices are free of causes, as you well know.

And that's fine and true, but choices and will are different things.

The question is whether there could be any undetermined component to choice. I do not see knowledge of God as anything more than one of the determinants that enters into the mix of making a choice. According to Christian lore, all of the other determinants are rooted in the Prime Mover--God. One of God's roles in all of this is to serve as the initial cause--the solution to the paradox of infinite regression. So he is responsible for all of the circumstances that determine our choices.

Agreed on definitions. That's predestination, seen in a particular light.

God is not the undetermined component in will, if that's what you mean. We are --the ego, "I".

God doesn't do a very good job as an "uncaused cause" (for all except those who believe in God, however), as God is clearly a thinking being, just like us. His choices are determined by his priorities, just as ours are.

And that's why God as cause (predestination) is on a par with an objectively determined universe, and why self-determination stands in contrast to them.

 

[Copernicus]

So if others don't think like you, they're the ones who are confused. Got it.

You were the first to accuse me of being confused. My reply was that Christian theodicy appeared confused about the matter not me. I did not make a blanket claim about everyone who disagrees with me.

I believe that the illusion of the acausality of ego-related events exists. I indulge it every moment of every day, including writing in this thread as if from a point of view that I hold.

Your belief is compatible with my claim. There is an illusion of acausality. In reality, choice is determined.

And that's fine and true, but choices and will are different things.

You have yet to explain how the difference makes a difference with respect to this discussion. The expressions "free will" and "free choice" are synonymous in some contexts but not in others. We should avoid terminological disputes and equivocation. Therefore, can you clarify what you mean by "free will"?

God is not the undetermined component in will, if that's what you mean. We are --the ego, "I".

I guess I'm still stuck on the question of what you mean by "undetermined cause". If an event is undetermined, would it not then be a random event? Our choices are not random. They are determined by our priorities--calculations which seem to require physical brain activity to take place. Hence, will is determined by the interaction between brain activity and sensory stimuli. That is the whole point of free will--to allow us to operate in and survive unpredictable circumstances. It is certain that there are determined components to "free will". What you have yet to explain is what it is about free will that is undetermined or acausal.

And that's why God as cause (predestination) is on a par with an objectively determined universe, and why self-determination stands in contrast to them.

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you intend to say here about God. I don't think that the "first cause" argument makes any sense at all. It starts with the premise that everything has a cause and ends up contradicting that premise. But I do get that you are trying to say that our free will makes us similar to God.

 

[Copernicus]

what if god created us then erassed our mind of his existance we would belief we have free will but any action he does to influance us just won't be recogniced as an act of god now

Your wording is a little too jumbled for me to get precisely what you mean, but I'll take a stab at it. You seem to be saying that God did not really give us free will, just the illusion of free will. I don't think that we need posit the existence of God to believe that will is determined by many causes that we are ignorant of. The point is that our priorities determine the choices that we make, but we don't really choose our priorities. Those are a product of our natures and our circumstances.

 

[Willamena]

Your belief is compatible with my claim. There is an illusion of acausality. In reality, choice is determined.

You have yet to explain how the difference makes a difference with respect to this discussion. The expressions "free will" and "free choice" are synonymous in some contexts but not in others. We should avoid terminological disputes and equivocation. Therefore, can you clarify what you mean by "free will"?

It makes a difference in that you keep defaulting to the term "free choice" (in this and other threads) when the argument linked to in the OP is actually about "free will" (..."if the will is indeed free, then it is logically possible for someone to always freely choose the good." Choice being freely made relies on will being free.) I agree as far as that we should not equate the terms when it confuses the argument.

There is another thread active where I posted about free will:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1429385-post16.html

I guess I'm still stuck on the question of what you mean by "undetermined cause". If an event is undetermined, would it not then be a random event? Our choices are not random. They are determined by our priorities--calculations which seem to require physical brain activity to take place. Hence, will is determined by the interaction between brain activity and sensory stimuli. That is the whole point of free will--to allow us to operate in and survive unpredictable circumstances. It is certain that there are determined components to "free will". What you have yet to explain is what it is about free will that is undetermined or acausal.

Events are determined: they are part of the world that we, as observer, are spectator to. The illusion of acausality, that you admit to above, is what is the "undetermined component".

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you intend to say here about God. I don't think that the "first cause" argument makes any sense at all. It starts with the premise that everything has a cause and ends up contradicting that premise. But I do get that you are trying to say that our free will makes us similar to God.

No, I'm saying having that image of "God" that you portrayed makes "God" similar to determination, and that we, with our free will, still stand in contrast to it. To both.

 

[Copernicus]

It makes a difference in that you keep defaulting to the term "free choice" (in this and other threads) when the argument linked to in the OP is actually about "free will" (..."if the will is indeed free, then it is logically possible for someone to always freely choose the good." Choice being freely made relies on will being free.) I agree as far as that we should not equate the terms when it confuses the argument.

This is case where I may be just missing the point that you are trying to make. I don't think that you can describe free will without talking about choice. It is not confusing the terms. Free will implies at least some level of freedom of choice. So I don't see how I have been confusing the argument.

There is another thread active where I posted about free will:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1429385-post16.html

Perhaps you made some points there that I need to read, and maybe you are thinking that you have made the same points here. I'll go to that thread and contribute if I see something there to elaborate on.

Events are determined: they are part of the world that we, as observer, are spectator to. The illusion of acausality, that you admit to above, is what is the "undetermined component".

The word "illusion" suggests that acausality is unreal--just an appearance or a facade. Again, I am at a loss to understand your point. What makes choices seem undetermined is our ignorance of the causes, not any real "undetermined" component of the choice. The expression "undetermined cause" is an oxymoron. Causes consist of two events--an antecedent and a consequence. All events, in principle, were preceded or determined by prior events. In the case of so-called "free will", the prior determinant is brain activity that computes priorities against expected outcomes of actions.

No, I'm saying having that image of "God" that you portrayed makes "God" similar to determination, and that we, with our free will, still stand in contrast to it. To both.

I don't quite get your point yet, but I'll keep trying.