In defense of robots

[Copernicus]

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 for robots and morality, I leave you with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In fact, Asimov worked out ways in which robots could violate #1. They can behave just like Christians who go to war and kill, even though God commands that they not kill. There is always the "greater good" to motivate evil.

 

[Uchi Mata]

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.

I think your confusion is warranted, because the Christian conception of free-will here is not a coherent one. The idea that God's interference would mess everything up is a doctrine that Christians must hold to attempt to explain away the complete absence of their deity in our world. Of course, as you noted, there's nothing that makes sense about this view, but it stands nevertheless.

If they did not hold such a view, they could no longer write off their god's inactivity as a precaution or technicality. Being able to wave hands and explain away the glaring differences between scripture and reality is key to the continued survival of the Christian religion.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

Robots with free will in theory is not the issue...
Theists, at least those that argue free-will, reject the notion that the physical events in our brain determine our choices...

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.

This is a completely different arguement... The one says we are allowed free-will, therefore we have the ability this one says that God doesn't wish to overly influence us...

They can behave just like Christians who go to war and kill, even though God commands that they not kill. There is always the "greater good" to motivate evil.

Murder, God commands not to murder Though one might argue the cumulative message of Jesus precludes killing...

I think your confusion is warranted, because the Christian conception of free-will here is not a coherent one. The idea that God's interference would mess everything up is a doctrine that Christians must hold to attempt to explain away the complete absence of their deity in our world. Of course, as you noted, there's nothing that makes sense about this view, but it stands nevertheless.

If they did not hold such a view, they could no longer write off their god's inactivity as a precaution or technicality. Being able to wave hands and explain away the glaring differences between scripture and reality is key to the continued survival of the Christian religion.

I don't know who does, but I wouldn't argue that God is completely absent from the world, so there is nothing nessecary to explain away

 

[Uchi Mata]

Robots with free will in theory is not the issue...
Theists, at least those that argue free-will, reject the notion that the physical events in our brain determine our choices...

And thus, they begin the uphill battle against biology and neuroscience that they cannot win...

..Unless, of course, modern research conducted by the brightest minds of all history with the most advanced tools we've ever had is COMPLETELY wrong, and cultists from thousands of years ago who wrote that the Earth was created on the "first" day, and our Sun on the "fourth" were right all along with their magical explanation of human action being driven by some mysterious "soul".

I just can't decide which seems more likely!

I don't know who does, but I wouldn't argue that God is completely absent from the world, so there is nothing nessecary to explain away

You might not argue that he is absent, but I think you would have a hard time providing evidence to the contrary.

 

[Copernicus]

Robots with free will in theory is not the issue...

Maybe not with you, but it is in a great many theodicy arguments. Just Google the keywords "robots" and "theodicy". That will give you roughly 12,900 hits. If you Google "robots" and "free will", you will get roughly 620,000 hits. People generally do not associate robots with free will.

Theists, at least those that argue free-will, reject the notion that the physical events in our brain determine our choices...

Quite so, but I know of no credible argument to support that claim. It is easy to show that drugs can cause the brain to make different choices than when it is free of influence of drugs. Ditto for brain injuries.

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.

This is a completely different arguement... The one says we are allowed free-will, therefore we have the ability this one says that God doesn't wish to overly influence us...

But why would so many Christians then argue that God's meddling in our affairs would somehow turn us into robots? You seem to agree with me that they are wrong to argue that, but it still seems to be a very popular position of theists who argue theodicy.

The argument that God doesn't wish to "overly influence" us is vague. It looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. God gets to determine what is just the right amount of divine thumb on the scale of intervention, so we can't criticize him for not showing up when a child is being victiimized or terrorists crash planes into skyscrapers full of people. However, he still plays divine peekaboo with us through interventions under circumstances that are impossible for people at large to confirm objectively.

They can behave just like Christians who go to war and kill, even though God commands that they not kill. There is always the "greater good" to motivate evil.

Murder, God commands not to murder Though one might argue the cumulative message of Jesus precludes killing...

Actually, it isn't totally clear whether the commandment makes any such fine distinction between murder and killing or whether Christians who want to justify killing have imposed that interpretation in order to absolve them from disobediance. And there is considerable disagreement among Christians as to just how much of a pacifist Christ was.

 

[lunamoth]

Theists sometimes argue free will theodicy--that God permits evil in order that we might choose to obey his will freely.

God does not permit evil in the sense that evil is a necessary part of his plan or that evil is needed so that we may know good. Free will means that there is a potential for evil, that we can choose other than God's will.

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.

Either I'm not understanding this argument or else I don't agree with it. God intervenes directly in our choices all the time, and God' presence is always with us. Yet we still don't always choose God's will. God's intervening is in the form of a persuasion or lure, not as coercion or force

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.

I don't know much about robots or what it means for a robto to make free choices, except I can conceptualize the idea of a 'random choice' program kicking in at some places where a choice is needed. In humans the random choice plus physical constraints plus divine lure or aim all influence the final choice. I have never been able to quite figure exactly where the "I" is in all this, the agent which chooses, but I experience it all the same.

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.

I agree. I think either the argument is not being presented clearly or it's not been thought all the way through.

#1. They can behave just like Christians who go to war and kill, even though God commands that they not kill. There is always the "greater good" to motivate evil.

Humans can thwart God's will in the short term. It's not God's will that there be wars and they do not get his tacit approval. It's more a matter of lesser of evils under the circumstances.

 

[Copernicus]

God does not permit evil in the sense that evil is a necessary part of his plan or that evil is needed so that we may know good. Free will means that there is a potential for evil, that we can choose other than God's will.

If God is omnipotent and created everything, including the potential for evil, then it must be his will that evil be allowed to exist. I don't see any way around that reasoning.

Either I'm not understanding this argument or else I don't agree with it. God intervenes directly in our choices all the time, and God' presence is always with us. Yet we still don't always choose God's will. God's intervening is in the form of a persuasion or lure, not as coercion or force

This position strikes me as untenable, given the omnipotence and omniscience of God. He cannot actually lure us in a direction that he knows we will not take. He cannot attempt to persuade us of anything without succeeding. Lack of success in God's efforts implies lack of omnipotence.

I don't know much about robots or what it means for a robto to make free choices, except I can conceptualize the idea of a 'random choice' program kicking in at some places where a choice is needed. In humans the random choice plus physical constraints plus divine lure or aim all influence the final choice. I have never been able to quite figure exactly where the "I" is in all this, the agent which chooses, but I experience it all the same.

Choice is not random in humans or robots. Priorities determine choices. Asimov's rules are a set of priorities--moral imperatives.

Humans can thwart God's will in the short term. It's not God's will that there be wars and they do not get his tacit approval. It's more a matter of lesser of evils under the circumstances.

What would have been the greater evil in preventing genocidal behavior in past wars? I don't get this argument at all. It seems to lead directly to the Panglossian argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds--an idea that Voltaire lampooned outrageously in Candide.

 

[ChristineES]

This argument is pointless, there are no robots with free will. Machines can't think for themselves. Science fiction androids (like Data) provide for good entertainment, but they don't exist- they may never will.

 

[lunamoth]

This position strikes me as untenable, given the omnipotence and omniscience of God. He cannot actually lure us in a direction that he knows we will not take. He cannot attempt to persuade us of anything without succeeding. Lack of success in God's efforts implies lack of omnipotence.

You can't force someone to love you or it is not love.

Choice is not random in humans or robots. Priorities determine choices. Asimov's rules are a set of priorities--moral imperatives.

Thank you for the correction in my use of 'random' with respect to choice. Priorities plus the bulk of past experience plus physical constraints effect choice, right?

Where does creativity come from if everything is determined only by what came before, even given rules for prioritization? How do we dip into the pool of chaos to pull out novelty?

What would have been the greater evil in preventing genocidal behavior in past wars? I don't get this argument at all. It seems to lead directly to the Panglossian argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds--an idea that Voltaire lampooned outrageously in Candide.

This is far from the best world, but I don't think you can blame that on God.

 

[trucolorado]

well if anything all people act like robots. our very being is a binary network of yes and nos, ups and downs, rights and wrongs. And our every decision we make is governed by self interest or current belief status(same thing). Even computers are liable to make errors like humans and no system is perfect.... not even the mac.

so whats the dif.

 

[Copernicus]

You can't force someone to love you or it is not love.

True, but I am not God. From his perspective, it ought to be easy to create beings that would love him. What would really be difficult, if not downright impossible, for an omnipotent being would be to create anything that was at all "difficult" for it to do--the old "weight to heavy to lift" conundrum.

Thank you for the correction in my use of 'random' with respect to choice. Priorities plus the bulk of past experience plus physical constraints effect choice, right?

Right.

Where does creativity come from if everything is determined only by what came before, even given rules for prioritization? How do we dip into the pool of chaos to pull out novelty?

Novelty is an experience not felt before--the discovery of something unexpected. We can write computer programs that create novelty. Are you familiar with "artificial life" programs? We now have computerized methods that invent new designs. Can we program computers to appreciate art? I suspect that that will come as we make more discoveries about how to program associative memory.

This is far from the best world, but I don't think you can blame that on God.

I can if an omnipotent/omniscient God created this world and he could have done a better job.

 

[Copernicus]

This argument is pointless, there are no robots with free will. Machines can't think for themselves. Science fiction androids (like Data) provide for good entertainment, but they don't exist- they may never will.

How can you know that we will never create such artificial beings? As for robots, we can program them to operate autonomously and make choices on the basis of their own situation and priorities. Our machines just have a long way to go before their choices will be as sophisticated as those of higher forms of animal life.

 

[lunamoth]

Novelty is an experience not felt before--the discovery of something unexpected. We can write computer programs that create novelty. Are you familiar with "artificial life" programs? We now have computerized methods that invent new designs. Can we program computers to appreciate art? I suspect that that will come as we make more discoveries about how to program associative memory.

At what point do you decide that robots have reason? Morality?

When do you need to grant them civil rights and it becomes wrong to keep them as our slaves?

Just curious.

 

[gnostic]

If you chooses to believe in the myth about Satan, particularly the one that had him and his followers thrown out of heaven, then God's presence did not make Satan automaton, by defying god.

That being the case, I don't think human's free will would be seriously affected by the presence of god. You can still choose to worship him or not. I preferred to knowing that God's real before doing any worshipping than worshipping god purely out of faith, but no manifestation.

I think the theists' arguments about there would be no free will with God's presence is a seriously flawed argument too.

From what I have read about God in the bible, I don't think I would worship him because he is seriously more flawed and sadistic than the satan's character, because of eternal torment just because you don't convert to seriously one of those fatally flawed religions. Hardly the loving, merciful god.

 

[Copernicus]

At what point do you decide that robots have reason? Morality?

When do you need to grant them civil rights and it becomes wrong to keep them as our slaves?

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.

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.

 

[Storm]

True, but I am not God. From his perspective, it ought to be easy to create beings that would love him.

Yes, but without free will, it would be hollow and meaningless.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, but without free will, it would be hollow and meaningless.

You think just like a woman. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Seriously, though, love is a complex human emotion that quite frankly involves self-sacrifice on both sides. The problem with the Christian God is that his worshipers have exalted him beyond imagination. A truly omnipotent being still cannot do illogical things, and it would be illogical for such a being to create challenges for itself. That is like creating a stone too heavy for it to lift. The idea that an omnipotent creator of the universe would find us intriguing, endearing, worth keeping around for eternity, etc., is really born out of human narcissism. He isn't a suitor trying to beat off competitors in a mating game.

 

[Storm]

You think just like a woman. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Not according to my ex-girlfriends.

The problem with the Christian God is that his worshipers have exalted him beyond imagination. A truly omnipotent being still cannot do illogical things,

Agreed.

and it would be illogical for such a being to create challenges for itself.

I can see both sides of that one, but I don't see how it's pertinent to this discussion.

The idea that an omnipotent creator of the universe would find us intriguing, endearing, worth keeping around for eternity, etc., is really born out of human narcissism. He isn't a suitor trying to beat off competitors in a mating game.

I don't know. There's nothing in the theology that says He can't get lonely.

 

[Copernicus]

Not according to my ex-girlfriends.

OK, maybe not in ALL ways.

I can see both sides of that one, but I don't see how it's pertinent to this discussion.

An omnipotent being cannot have the kind of love you described. It is logically impossible.

I don't know. There's nothing in the theology that says He can't get lonely.

There is the part that says he is omnipotent. Omnipotent beings are more limited than us mortals in many ways. Our behavior has been determined by our need to strengthen ourselves against threats that life presents us with. Where would God have acquired similar needs? Loneliness motivates us to form social units, which strengthens our ability to survive. People who are alone are more vulnerable.

 

[Storm]

An omnipotent being cannot have the kind of love you described. It is logically impossible.

1) Why?

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

There is the part that says he is omnipotent. Omnipotent beings are more limited than us mortals in many ways.

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

Our behavior has been determined by our need to strengthen ourselves against threats that life presents us with. Where would God have acquired similar needs? Loneliness motivates us to form social units, which strengthens our ability to survive. People who are alone are more vulnerable.

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.