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]

[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.

The fact remains that the materialist cannot differentiate between good and bad, nature has nothing that these terms can be based on. Can mindless evolution ever do "good" or "bad"? Surely to do good or bad implies intent, can molecules or cells behave with intent? can a molecule or cell choose to do good or bad? No, there is nothing in science to support this view.

Therefore no assemblage of parts can ever do good or bad when none of the parts themselves possess that ability can it? If no molecule or cell within you has an ability to do good or bad on what basis do you claim that you can, nevertheless choose to do good or bad?

Therefore - from a materialist standpoint - murdering a child cannot be good or bad when the murderer can do no more than what the laws of science and chemistry compel him to do. There is no way scientifically to differentiate between good and bad unless you introduce some agency other than the laws of nature.

[Jose Fly]

The fact remains that the materialist cannot differentiate between good and bad,

To repeat....

Homo sapiens are a decidedly social species that has evolved rather complex social behaviors. One of the more important factors in our long-term survival as a species is our ability to form cooperative groups, which increases the likelihood of the groups' persistence. As a way to illustrate this, think of a scenario where two groups of humans are placed on separate isolated islands. After they arrive on the island, the first group starts killing, raping, stealing from, and otherwise harming each other, whereas the second group forms a cooperative and mutually supportive society. It's reasonable to conclude that the second group is far more likely to persist than the first.

So tying this back to the morality question is pretty easy. Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

[Inquirer]

The fact remains that the materialist cannot differentiate between good and bad,

To repeat....

Homo sapiens are a decidedly social species that has evolved rather complex social behaviors. One of the more important factors in our long-term survival as a species is our ability to form cooperative groups, which increases the likelihood of the groups' persistence. As a way to illustrate this, think of a scenario where two groups of humans are placed on separate isolated islands. After they arrive on the island, the first group starts killing, raping, stealing from, and otherwise harming each other, whereas the second group forms a cooperative and mutually supportive society. It's reasonable to conclude that the second group is far more likely to persist than the first.

So tying this back to the morality question is pretty easy. Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

So some act is deemed "good" if it furthers the longevity of the community and "bad" if it reduces it, yes?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #101]

The fact remains that the materialist cannot differentiate between good and bad, nature has nothing that these terms can be based on.

Indeed - this is also the same for the theist.

Can mindless evolution ever do "good" or "bad"?

Even if a rock had a mind [such the Planet Earth] can the planet [as a mechanism] be observed to do "good" or "bad"?
(Therefore is it natural for any mind to think in terms of "good" or "bad"?)

Surely to do good or bad implies intent,

I am not convinced it is necessary to view mind as having any particular intent to which all have to be compiled as either "good" or "bad". Mind within nature would behave more naturally if it observed nature as neither "good" or "bad".

can molecules or cells behave with intent?

If they had minds, yes.

can a molecule or cell choose to do good or bad?

If they had minds, why would they have to chose to view what they do, as either good or bad?

No, there is nothing in science to support this view.

Nothing currently. If the belief that there is a mind behind creation [theism] is true, eventually humans will establish this, and it cannot be concluded now, that science will not have its part to play in that discovery.

Until then, the question remains open.

Therefore - from a materialist standpoint - murdering a child cannot be good or bad when the murderer can do no more than what the laws of science and chemistry compel him to do.

To correct you - my observation is that the above is NOT "from a materialist standpoint" if your position is theist. If you [Inquirer:] are a theist, then it is your assumption that "murdering a child cannot be good or bad when the murderer can do no more than what the laws of science and chemistry compel him to do."

The materialist pov most likely differs from your own. I bear that in mind.

There is no way scientifically to differentiate between good and bad unless you introduce some agency other than the laws of nature.

As far as I currently understand, [given the data I have been exposed to, to date.] that was Religion's trick to introduce "some agency other than the laws of nature" in order to establish the idea of good and evil into the human mind, regarding nature.

The diagram below shows my [particular] current understanding of the positions to do with the human response to said introduction.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #102]

tying this back to the morality question is pretty easy. Human societies that are more cooperative are more functional, successful, and more likely to persist than ones where members harm and kill each other. Thus it's to our benefit (both individual and collective) to form cooperative and functional societies.

This itself is a solution which superimposes atheism and theism positions, because both camps have personal who support the idea of the functional societies you mention Josh.
But the question is, is it really a "morality question" or are all sources of morality questions derived from outside of nature?


The superimposed shared aspects of the two sides

[brunumb]

Therefore no assemblage of parts can ever do good or bad when none of the parts themselves possess that ability can it? If no molecule or cell within you has an ability to do good or bad on what basis do you claim that you can, nevertheless choose to do good or bad?

Even if I don't know how or why, this assemblage of parts can, and does, choose to do good and bad. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with all of this?

[Inquirer]

Therefore no assemblage of parts can ever do good or bad when none of the parts themselves possess that ability can it? If no molecule or cell within you has an ability to do good or bad on what basis do you claim that you can, nevertheless choose to do good or bad?

Even if I don't know how or why, this assemblage of parts can, and does, choose to do good and bad. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with all of this?

That we face a deep problem, there's no scientific basis for free will, molecules cant freely choose what to do nor can cells not even neurons. What each of these does is dictated by its current state and the laws of nature.

There are no good laws and no bad laws, just laws, there is no good evolution and no bad evolution, there are no good animals and no bad animals, good and bad doesn't exist in a material world, therefore there can be no absolute morality.

There cannot be good and bad without free will, choice; how can someone be "good" or "bad" if their actions are dictated by laws of nature?

The materialists and atheists should stop trying to force-fit the real world into some inadequate manufactured worldview and instead adjust their worldview to fit reality.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #107]

... molecules cant freely choose what to do nor can cells not even neurons. What each of these does is dictated by its current state and the laws of nature.

Right, but when they are assembled into a complex organism like a human being with a working brain, all of that is irrelevant. The organism can freely choose what to do, as we observe.

The materialists and atheists should stop trying to force-fit the real world into some inadequate manufactured worldview and instead adjust their worldview to fit reality.

Look in the mirror! You are trying to force-fit your view that a human (in the materialists view) is simply a "machine" made of nonliving parts like atoms and neurons, and that any such "machine" has to be incapable of free will, knowing right from wrong, etc. because individual atoms and neurons are incapable of these things. That is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Your worldview is contrary to what is observed, which is that that complex systems can and do have behavior and capabilities far beyond the capabilities of their constituent parts. You are ignoring this simple and observable fact, a fact that negates the basis of your argument entirely.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #107]

... molecules cant freely choose what to do nor can cells not even neurons. What each of these does is dictated by its current state and the laws of nature.

Right, but when they are assembled into a complex organism like a human being with a working brain, all of that is irrelevant. The organism can freely choose what to do, as we observe.

Apparently yes, but of you describe that as true free will then you must introduce something new, something not governed by laws and determinism. So I agree we do seem to have free will but if so we cannot explain that scientifically.

The materialists and atheists should stop trying to force-fit the real world into some inadequate manufactured worldview and instead adjust their worldview to fit reality.

Look in the mirror! You are trying to force-fit your view that a human (in the materialists view) is simply a "machine" made of nonliving parts like atoms and neurons, and that any such "machine" has to be incapable of free will, knowing right from wrong, etc. because individual atoms and neurons are incapable of these things. That is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Your worldview is contrary to what is observed, which is that that complex systems can and do have behavior and capabilities far beyond the capabilities of their constituent parts. You are ignoring this simple and observable fact, a fact that negates the basis of your argument entirely.

I'm not forcing that view that humans are simply machines, that IS the view that arises from our knowledge of science, I am just emphasizing that if we confine ourselves to scientific explanations, cause and effect, laws of nature, then there can be no free will so we MUST be just machines, like an ant is just a machine. Any machine made from lots of smaller machines, must itself be nothing more than a machine.

You are an electronics engineer so should appreciate better than most, what I'm talking about here.

Take a transistor, say a simple FET or op-amp. Well the characteristic curves for that are what they are, you apply a gate voltage and you get a resulting drain/source current, there are as you know better than I perhaps, documented characteristic curves for this.

If we build a circuit out of ten, a hundred or a million of them, then the output will be a computable function of the input, the system does not suddenly acquire some magic ability to decide for itself what the output will be irrespective of the input.

The closest you might get is to subject the system to noise and in that case we might get an unpredictable output sometimes, but unpredictable does mean free will, a dice is unpredictable but does not have free will. Same goes for digital computers, there is no free will, an algorithm is a set of rules, computers always follow the rules laid down in the code, they do not do their own thing.

At every instant in time, the CPU's state is precisely and unambiguously determined by its history (past state) and the code it is executing.

Same thing for analog computers, the systems are deterministic.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #109]

You are an electronics engineer so should appreciate better than most, what I'm talking about here.

Thanks for the new title, but I'm a spectroscopist by trade although I have learned quite a bit of electronics over the years out of a need to do so.

Take a transistor, say a simple FET or op-amp. Well the characteristic curves for that are what they are, you apply a gate voltage and you get a resulting drain/source current, there are as you know better than I perhaps, documented characteristic curves for this.

I do know how MOSFETs and bipolar junction transistors work (and opamps which are built from transistors). A crude analogy to my point that the whole can be far more capable and and with new functions compared to its parts would in fact be an opamp. The individual transistors and other components that make up an opamp cannot individually carry out the basic function of an opamp (ie. force the output to whatever voltage is necessary to make the voltages at the + and - inputs equal), but the complete opamp can perform this function (or rail trying). The opamp can perform a function that its constituent components cannot.

If we build a circuit out of ten, a hundred or a million of them, then the output will be a computable function of the input, the system does not suddenly acquire some magic ability to decide for itself what the output will be irrespective of the input.

Right, but that's not analogous to consciousness being an emergent property of a working brain. A typical human brain contains something like 90 billion neurons and 10-50 times that many glial cells:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1201895109

And neurons are not simple 2-state transistors (a single synapse may act more like that):

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/170 ... e-learning

This massively parallel architecture and the ability of neurons to change the "strength" of intreactions based on repetition of signals make the brain a far more capable "computer" than anything we've ever built yet as a machine. We don't understand it well enough to put boundaries on its capabilities and say that something like consciousness is not possible as an emergent property. We know that humans are conscious beings (as are many other animals), while plants are not ... and, not coincidently, plants don't have brains. The human brain is not deterministic ... yet anyway.