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?

[Purple Knight]

But in the church environment, everyone knew about the hierarchy, supported it, obeyed it, and didn't question it.

This is because they're an insular group and everyone inside it is fooled into thinking they have the dominant opinion, so they all act like their opinion is the dominant one.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]

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?"

I don't see the problem re the above because I do not view "evolutionists" as opposite from "creationists" although I understand the general differences between the two groups boil down to both thinking that the other either excludes or includes the idea of the universe being a creation - implying a creator - and the idea that a creator can apply to the theory of evolution is often overlooked or pronounced as "unnecessary" and I also see no logical reason why the age of this universe is a necessary matter of contention.

Perhaps it is generally understood that to be a 'creationist' one has to believe in biblical writ, rather than simply understand that there is sufficient evidence to conclude it is most likely we exist within a creation, and in that, the answer to "which" religious idea of god 'did it', becomes redundant.

In saying as much, I personally do not easily relate to the current general-thinking of either "evolutionists" or "creationists".

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

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

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?

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

To answer the debate question.
It is at times hard to understand those on the other side. For example, some will pretend that they don't know the meaning of words or what a dictionary is as was done above.
This is hard for me to understand.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

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

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?

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

To answer the debate question.
It is at times hard to understand those on the other side. For example, some will pretend that they don't know the meaning of words or what a dictionary is as was done above.
This is hard for me to understand.

If you're referring to "free will" above then please note, I am aware of the various definitions but they don't tell me what it means scientifically. Accusing me of "pretending" (deception) is rather offensive, uncivil.

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.

[Jose Fly]

But in the church environment, everyone knew about the hierarchy, supported it, obeyed it, and didn't question it.

This is because they're an insular group and everyone inside it is fooled into thinking they have the dominant opinion, so they all act like their opinion is the dominant one.

Not in any evangelical environment I've been in. Instead, there was a very well established hierarchy that everyone submitted to....the Head Pastor, Associate Pastors, Deacons (or something like that), Elders, Sunday School teachers, and the congregation. If the Head Pastor said something like "This is what we believe in this church", then everyone else was expected to abide or leave.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]

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?"

I don't see the problem re the above because I do not view "evolutionists" as opposite from "creationists" although I understand the general differences between the two groups boil down to both thinking that the other either excludes or includes the idea of the universe being a creation - implying a creator - and the idea that a creator can apply to the theory of evolution is often overlooked or pronounced as "unnecessary" and I also see no logical reason why the age of this universe is a necessary matter of contention.

Perhaps it is generally understood that to be a 'creationist' one has to believe in biblical writ, rather than simply understand that there is sufficient evidence to conclude it is most likely we exist within a creation, and in that, the answer to "which" religious idea of god 'did it', becomes redundant.

In saying as much, I personally do not easily relate to the current general-thinking of either "evolutionists" or "creationists".

That's a good perspective...thanks for posting it!

You're certainly correct in that for many folks the "evolutionists vs creationists" divide is unnecessary. Interestingly, in the years I've spent on this subject one thing I've noticed is that creationists are far more threatened by people who agree with their religious beliefs but are also okay with evolution (e.g., theistic evolutionists), probably because a threat is much more serious when it's coming from someone in your own tent.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

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

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?

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

To answer the debate question.
It is at times hard to understand those on the other side. For example, some will pretend that they don't know the meaning of words or what a dictionary is as was done above.
This is hard for me to understand.

If you're referring to "free will" above then please note, I am aware of the various definitions but they don't tell me what it means scientifically. Accusing me of "pretending" (deception) is rather offensive, uncivil.

So you claim you are aware of various definitions for the word 'free will', yet avoid answering the question asked about free will? If you know various definitions for a word, clearly a lack of understanding of the word is not an issue. Where do I error here so I can correct my thinking?

To reiterate what was said for clarity:
"I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?"
I submit that a dictionary would have helped. Is it persecution to point out that dictionaries supply definitions for words? I wonder what the readers think?

To the debate question, it truly is hard to understand the other side at times. Specifically the victimhood and persecution some of them (generic) project on to themselves. It's as if they 'can't' see it and instead, double down.

Attempt to address it or discuss it and more gets poured on.
Truly confusing.

Statistics on this site alone show that it is the religious that has the hardest time abiding by the rules. Just look at who gets banned more, yet the narrative we get seems to defy this reality. I wonder who I'm persecuting for bringing up this observation?

A robot with free will! What does that even mean?
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
How could such a question ever be answered?!
/sarcasm off.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

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

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?

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

To answer the debate question.
It is at times hard to understand those on the other side. For example, some will pretend that they don't know the meaning of words or what a dictionary is as was done above.
This is hard for me to understand.

If you're referring to "free will" above then please note, I am aware of the various definitions but they don't tell me what it means scientifically. Accusing me of "pretending" (deception) is rather offensive, uncivil.

So you claim you are aware of various definitions for the word 'free will', yet avoid answering the question asked about free will? If you know various definitions for a word, clearly a lack of understanding of the word is not an issue. Where do I error here so I can correct my thinking?

To reiterate what was said for clarity:
"I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?"
I submit that a dictionary would have helped. Is it persecution to point out that dictionaries supply definitions for words? I wonder what the readers think?

To the debate question, it truly is hard to understand the other side at times. Specifically the victimhood and persecution some of them (generic) project on to themselves. It's as if they 'can't' see it and instead, double down.

Attempt to address it or discuss it and more gets poured on.
Truly confusing.

Statistics on this site alone show that it is the religious that has the hardest time abiding by the rules. Just look at who gets banned more, yet the narrative we get seems to defy this reality. I wonder who I'm persecuting for bringing up this observation?

A robot with free will! What does that even mean?
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
How could such a question ever be answered?!
/sarcasm off.

As I said above (apologies, this was an edit that you didn't see)

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]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #88]

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.

You wrote:
"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?"

Your subsequent argument re "what is free will?" appears to tell us that you do not believe that humans were created by God, with the attribute of free will.
This is unusual, for most Christians argue the opposite, because without free-will, the garden-story of the supposed fall of humankind has nothing to stand on, which in turn means that the sacrifice of Christ also has nothing to stand on. Christianity crumbles.

As Purple Knight wrote:
"... when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible."

Christians do indeed infer that humans are morally obligated to their idea of The Creator.

A robot can be programmed to follow any rules its creator writes as part of its coding. There is no requirement for will [free or otherwise] and your answer to PK implied that humans were akin to robots, which is scientifically incorrect as we observe robots to operate following explicate coding to which they cannot willfully divert from.

Thus, the only way we can find any sense in your statement is to understand that what you are saying, is humans were coded to behave as we do and in that, the Creator of said humans has the right to do whatever he wants with us.

If this is what you are saying, then we cannot be morally obligated because morality has nothing to do with it, unless it can be shown that the coding which animates human behavior is moral, and designed to reflect the morality of the Creator.

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

[Clownboat]

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.