Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

Consider: What tests can we perform on a system to determine if it does or does not posses free will? Qualitatively, how - mechanistically - does a machine with free will differ from one without? Can we take a machine without free will and add something to it, to give it free will? if so, what is it that we'd need to add exactly?

This is what I was referring to when I wrote that I didn't know what was meant by the term.

Quite a few edits came in while I was responding to your original post.
This will likely be more for the readers as I don't know how you could respond.

The original question was this: "If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?"

Here are the attempted justifications for why an answer was not provided about creating a sex robot with free will:
"What tests can we perform on a system to determine if it does or does not possess free will?"
Are we to believe that this questions here was an obstacle and a valid reason as to why the sex robot question could not be answered? What tests can be performed is irrelevant to the fact the sex robot in question has free will. To me, it seems like a case of playing dumb to avoid the line of questioning.

Then we get: "how - mechanistically - does a machine with free will differ from one without?"
Again, this is irrelevant and seems to just be an avoidance mechanism at work in order to avoid the line of questioning being asked as the robot in question has it free will. I could identify the mechanical part as being a flux compasitor and it wouldn't affect being able to answer the original question or not.

And then finally: "Can we take a machine without free will and add something to it, to give it free will? if so, what is it that we'd need to add exactly?"
Again, irrelevant as the robot in question has free will.

This kind of reasoning or perhaps better stated, the lack of reasoning is what makes understanding the other side so hard at times.

Yes that was the original question and my reply to it was "I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?".

I'll explain it for you. It is commonly called seeking clarification. The question is predicated on "free will" being a tangible, meaningful, real thing, something we can scientifically describe and test for.

I cannot possibly decide what I would or would not do with a machine possessing a property that apparently does not exist. I'm being asked to rationally describe how I'd interact with something that cannot exist - that is the real irrelevance here.

My lack of answer is far less of a frustration than several people's ongoing inability to explain what it is they are talking about.

So, lets try again shall we? does free will exist? do you know how to test for its presence? No, you clearly do not, in which case how can anyone reason about something that does not exist?

Be sarcastic if you must, but a polite answer would be appreciated, this is just a discussion why turn into a fight?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #91]

It is commonly called seeking clarification.

The best way to seek clarification is to simply ask for it. The way you went about it did not convey that you were seeking any such thing.

I cannot possibly decide what I would or would not do with a machine possessing a property that apparently does not exist. I'm being asked to rationally describe how I'd interact with something that cannot exist - that is the real irrelevance here.

Considering it was YOU who brought the robot analogy into this discussion, Post #48 and now propose such a thing is the real irrelevance here, I am hard-pressed to contain my chortle.

I think it fair to say that Clownboats saying "it seems like a case of playing dumb to avoid the line of questioning." has much relevance here, AVOIDANCE also being part of the OP subject re religious folk and their mode of operating.

Further evidence to that are the numerous posts I have made specifically to question your statements, which have been and are continuing to be ignored by you...which of course, you are entitled to do, - but in doing so - it doesn't bode well for your arguments...something the OP touches on as well, re religious folk and their mode of operating.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #91]

It is commonly called seeking clarification.

The best way to seek clarification is to simply ask for it. The way you went about it did not convey that you were seeking any such thing.

I see, so in your opinion this is not "asking for it"?

I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?

The question is polite, reasonable and pertinent, rather than being outraged at me for asking it, why not attempt answer it or admit you have no idea, is that really asking too much?

The rest of your reply is rude and insulting, I have no time for petty personal accusations, Clownboat's remarks are rude, uncivil, yet nothing is said about that.

The frequent references to terms like "religious folk" are amusing, I'm the one asking scientifically legitimate questions, I've made no mention of religion.

[Inquirer]

I'd like to remind people of this recent post by Bust Nak.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #93]

I see, so in your opinion this is not "asking for it"?
I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?

As has been pointed out already, your question was asked after the fact that YOU presented us with the robot argument.

I am not even going to waste time directing you to where I have already posted my reply.

The question is polite, reasonable and pertinent, rather than being outraged at me for asking it, why not attempt answer it or admit you have no idea, is that really asking too much?

Please.

Feigning you are somehow the victim of my alleged outrageousness when it was you who contradicted your own robot analogy, isn't going to help your argument or make you appear to be wrong-done by. It is not a great debating strategy.

The rest of your reply is rude and insulting, I have no time for petty personal accusations, Clownboat's remarks are rude, uncivil, yet nothing is said about that.

Claiming being insulted won't help your case either. It is simply a poor attempt at seeking undeserved sympathy from the readers.
If you believe you have been treated uncivilly, I implore you to seek justice from the moderating team by exercising your right to report any posts that you think fall under that category.

The frequent references to terms like "religious folk" are amusing,

It is not impolite to refer to religious folk as 'religious folk'.

I'm the one asking scientifically legitimate questions,

I am the one responding to those questions with scientifically legitimate questions of my own.

I've made no mention of religion.

Your statement re the robots and the creator of said robots, implied as much. If you are not a theist, you certainly haven't gone to any great lengths to make that obvious.

Meantime, I am satisfied there is nothing worthwhile in continuing in my attempt to ask you for any further clarification.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #93]

I see, so in your opinion this is not "asking for it"?
I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?

As has been pointed out already, your question was asked after the fact that YOU presented us with the robot argument.

I am not even going to waste time directing you to where I have already posted my reply.

The question is polite, reasonable and pertinent, rather than being outraged at me for asking it, why not attempt answer it or admit you have no idea, is that really asking too much?

Please.

Feigning you are somehow the victim of my alleged outrageousness when it was you who contradicted your own robot analogy, isn't going to help your argument or make you appear to be wrong-done by. It is not a great debating strategy.

The rest of your reply is rude and insulting, I have no time for petty personal accusations, Clownboat's remarks are rude, uncivil, yet nothing is said about that.

Claiming being insulted won't help your case either. It is simply a poor attempt at seeking undeserved sympathy from the readers.
If you believe you have been treated uncivilly, I implore you to seek justice from the moderating team by exercising your right to report any posts that you think fall under that category.

The frequent references to terms like "religious folk" are amusing,

It is not impolite to refer to religious folk as 'religious folk'.

I'm the one asking scientifically legitimate questions,

I am the one responding to those questions with scientifically legitimate questions of my own.

I've made no mention of religion.

Your statement re the robots and the creator of said robots, implied as much. If you are not a theist, you certainly haven't gone to any great lengths to make that obvious.

Meantime, I am satisfied there is nothing worthwhile in continuing in my attempt to ask you for any further clarification.

With all due respect, this is how I started this line of discussion:

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Do you see "free will" mentioned in that question? No. I made no mention of it.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #96]

With all due respect, this is how I started this line of discussion:
Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?
Do you see "free will" mentioned in that question? No. I made no mention of it.

As has been pointed out to you already, the aspect of free-will/will, was shown to be besides the point relating to my question which followed your robot example.

The point was that YOU brought in the robot. If it has no free-will/will, this will be because it was not programed to make its own calls, therefore it could not resist your will because your will for it in relation to you, would be part of its programing.
Therefore the answer would be that the question is misleading/framed incorrectly. It couldn't resist your will unless you programed it to be able to do so.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #96]

With all due respect, this is how I started this line of discussion:
Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?
Do you see "free will" mentioned in that question? No. I made no mention of it.

As has been pointed out to you already, the aspect of free-will/will, was shown to be besides the point relating to my question which followed your robot example.

The point was that YOU brought in the robot. If it has no free-will/will, this will be because it was not programed to make its own calls, therefore it could not resist your will because your will for it in relation to you, would be part of its programing.

Understand that a robot can never have free will because we do not know what it is, not because it's not programmed to have it, we do not know what it is or if it actually exists - this is a scientific fact.

Therefore the answer would be that the question is misleading/framed incorrectly. It couldn't resist your will unless you programed it to be able to do so.

So let me rephrase, is it wrong in any sense for the maker of a machine to destroy that machine for whatever reason? irrespective of how the machine might react to the suggestion it is to be destroyed?

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]

Or is it just me?

Most folk on either side have their ways of avoiding, of seeing evidence as not evidence, of ignoring items (such as video - an example I linked in Post #53 in this thread) which have information to draw from - et al - as they use such methods to ensure they remain within the stronghold of their particular defensive positions.
I am happy to engage with anyone on either side until such a time it becomes obvious they are using these tactics. Once this happens, I simply withdraw, as I have learned that to continue, serves no logical purpose and only encourages more of the same behavior.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #48]

PK: Of course I can see thinking of life as having been created deliberately. I see it as having been created accidentally so that's not much of a leap. The idea that nobody is powerful enough to do deliberately what a bacterium did accidentally is ludicrous. Of course it might have happened.

The understanding only breaks down when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible.

Inquirer: Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

PK: Whether the maker has rights to the robot isn't the first question. The first question is whether the robot should obey the maker unquestioningly.

If the robot is even asking the question then that's evidence that the answer is probably no.

...Because the robot is no longer a robot.

...And at that point, I would personally say no, the creator has no more right to the robot than a parent does to his child.

But I can easily assess the pressing question under the assumption that the answer is yes: The maker still owns the robot. At the point the robot becomes morally aware, he should defy his creator if he thinks his creator is an evil one, and he should try to win his own self-ownership if he can.

PK: That last paragraph is interesting, that is exactly what mankind has done!

JK: Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Inquirer: Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

JK: Biological, and mechanical.

Inquirer: Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

JK: As our technology advances, we will eventually have to deal with the issue of how we wish to consider our robots, androids, and other such.

Inquirer: So first you claim there's a difference, then say that right now you have no idea what difference is and have faith that in the future we will know! Basically you have no idea what the difference is.

JK: That's a fair assessment. What I'm getting at is a future where the question of "robot's rights" is apt to crop up.

So yeah, I don't think we're there yet - though it might do us well to set in on the question now (as you have).

Inquirer: Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will?

William: According to some arguments from Christians, they believe that the God gave humans free will, which allowed them to be more than simply robots.
Q: Would a robot you might construct and program, be given free will? And if so [assuming you would know how to achieve this] would you not be giving said robot the right to resist your own will?

Inquirer: Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

William: If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?

Inquirer: The robot would have no more no less than we do, it is subject to the same laws of nature.

William: How does this answer my question "If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?" since there are no known laws of nature preventing or compelling anyone to act in any particular way, re the question?

Inquirer: I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?

brunumb: If your view is not based on science, on what basis did you come to that view?

Inquirer: It is based on the belief that we are endowed with spirit, that we are not purely mechanistic.

Inquirer: I do not know what you mean by "free will" ...

William: In common Christian terms "Free Will" [as a gift to humans..so they behave other than as robots] is the implement which is used as an attempt to justify the Christian Gods actions, in relation to the supposed sinfulness of human beings.
If you are one who believes that free will doesn't exist, we can agree to refer to it simply as 'will'.

Inquirer: ...so how could I ever construct such a machine?

William: You wrote;

Inquirer: Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

William: I was simply going along with your analogy, re your apparent belief that a creator has the right to do as he pleases with what he has made.

Inquirer: Consider: What tests can we perform on a system to determine if it does or does not posses free will? Qualitatively, how - mechanistically - does a machine with free will differ from one without? Can we take a machine without free will and add something to it, to give it free will? if so, what is it that we'd need to add exactly?

This is what I was referring to when I wrote that I didn't know what was meant by the term.

William: What tests can we perform on a human being to determine if it does or does not posses free will?

With all due respect, this is how I started this line of discussion:
Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?
Do you see "free will" mentioned in that question? No. I made no mention of it.

Inquirer: With all due respect, this is how I started this line of discussion:
Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?
Do you see "free will" mentioned in that question? No. I made no mention of it.

William: As has been pointed out to you already, the aspect of free-will/will, was shown to be besides the point relating to my question which followed your robot example.

The point was that YOU brought in the robot. If it has no free-will/will, this will be because it was not programed to make its own calls, therefore it could not resist your will because your will for it in relation to you, would be part of its programing.

Inquirer: Understand that a robot can never have free will because we do not know what it is, not because it's not programmed to have it, we do not know what it is or if it actually exists - this is a scientific fact.

William: Therefore the answer would be that the question is misleading/framed incorrectly. It couldn't resist your will unless you programed it to be able to do so.

Inquirer: So let me rephrase, is it wrong in any sense for the maker of a machine to destroy that machine for whatever reason? irrespective of how the machine might react to the suggestion it is to be destroyed?
__________________________

Let me take the rephrased and apply it to PK's statement in Post #47

PK: The understanding only breaks down when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible.

Inquirer: Is it wrong in any sense for the maker of a machine to destroy that machine for whatever reason? irrespective of how the machine might react to the suggestion it is to be destroyed?
_________

Now I will take the rephrased and apply it to PK's answer in Post #49

PK: I can easily assess the pressing question under the assumption that the answer is yes: The maker still owns the robot. At the point the robot becomes morally aware, he should defy his creator if he thinks his creator is an evil one, and he should try to win his own self-ownership if he can.
________________

Since the question and answer are morally-based, what we appear to have here is two differences of opinion - the makers and the made.

My answer to the question is that it does not matter if the machine thinks it is right or wrong, if it's creator can destroy it and does so, the issue of morality doesn't change anything for the machine. It may have repercussions on the creator of the destroyed machine, depending on who witnesses the destructive act and lives to tell the tale and weather they think the act was right or wrong.

If the rule is that no reason has to be given by the creator for the destroying of the machine then there is no requirement by anyone to consider the act to being right or wrong as it is not a question of morality.

Therefore, it can be said that the question "Is it wrong in any sense for the maker of a machine to destroy that machine for whatever reason?" is dependent upon what reason [if any] is required to be given by the creator of the machine by whomever requires reason from said creator/destroyer.

As the [rephrased] question stands currently, it appears to be a badly loaded one which risks a misfire.

I think that the question requires further rephrasing in order to snip away the shoots of possible misunderstanding which threaten to sprout away into distractive branching.

Is it wrong for any creator of a machine to destroy the machine created? It is the use of the word 'wrong' which invokes a moral-based reply, because it infers the morality of the creator is under question.