Automatons

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Inevitably, a computer with sufficient complexity and energy efficiency capable of processing in this way will be constructed.

When it happens, I will revisit my theory and either revise or reject it.

I seem to remember a few, "inevitably"s in my time: The victory of the proletariat... the ascendancy of The Master Race...

....

Still waiting for those, but I'm not holding my breath.

So, if you want me to revisit my theory now, roll out the machine.

Currently, neurobiologists know which part of your brain thinks about its self-awareness. We know that the brain is made of neurons, mere physical objects arranged in a determined configuration that operate via biochemical processes. This makes you a machine of sorts.

Mmmm... Ok... Where's the sense of humor? Where's the creativity? Where do Justice and Mercy originate? If that's too steep, how about fairness and generosity?

So: Are all machines automatons?

 

[Mark Felt]

A computer will never be able to beat a human at chess!

Fixed.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Misquoted.

Fixed.

 

[rocketdodger]

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you're arguing from unproven premises. If you show the reasoning behind "evolution creates a machine" you'll have a better argument.

Ok, from the wikipedia entry on "Machine"

A "machine" is any device that uses energy to perform some activity

By definition, an evolved entity must perform some activity. By definition, an entity must use energy to perform an activity. Hence, an evolved entity is a machine.

Obviously, gagglenash is using some more constrained definition of "machine."

What is also obvious, to me (and I suspect more than a few others here), is that his defintion of "machine" is more along the lines of "any device that uses energy to perform some activity AND doesn't lead to a contradiction in my arbitrary worldview I.E. wasn't something created by God to be 'special' like I am 'special'."

Of course I would be happy to hear from him on the matter, but like with all theists, getting an actual definition is like pulling teeth...

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Please do. Why is a product of evolution not a machine?

Mmm - you know - now that I think of it, I might describe an amoeba as a machine... and an automaton....

Thanks. I've got something to think about.

...and it's your thesis that all machines are automatons?
No - that's not fair. A lever isn't an automaton....
all self-mobile machines are automatons?

(More later.)

 

[Mark Felt]

Hi




Mmm - you know - now that I think of it, I might describe an amoeba as a machine... and an automaton....

Thanks. I've got something to think about.

...and it's your thesis that all machines are automatons?
No - that's not fair. A lever isn't an automaton....
all self-mobile machines are automatons?

(More later.)

All humans == mammals.

All mammals =/= humans.

You have it backwards.

 

[Robin]

I grew up agnostic in a neighborhood of churchgoing Christians. I don't consider myself weak-minded or dependent on a "god-prop," nor would I make those kinds of belittling judgements about you since I don't know you.

I'm not trying to justify religion, claim atheism and nihilism are the same, or anything else people might imply that I'm doing. I just wanted to see how other people approached this issue. To me, viewing humans as mechanistic structures raises the question of why we should regard their lives or feelings in the first place if they have no intrinsic value. I wanted the opinions of others on this unsettling scenario.

Can you explain how we would be any less machines if there were a God?

We would still be machines, just God built machines. Bunch of machines and a Supreme Machine.

 

[Mark Felt]

Can you explain how we would be any less machines if there were a God?

We would still be machines, just God built machines. Bunch of machines and a Supreme Machine.

Asked and answered.

It's not that we wouldn't be machines, it's that there would be a reason for our existence. Does a toaster engage in existential angst? Hell no, it toasts.

 

[bokonon]

Grind down the universe to its smallest particles and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of truth.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Show me one atom of junk mail, one molecule of tooth.

The fact that you can't doesn't mean those things aren't real.

 

[Mark Felt]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Show me one atom of junk mail, one molecule of tooth.

The fact that you can't doesn't mean those things aren't real.

I could, however, show you a great many atoms that once constituted junk mail and a great many molecules that you used to grind your food.

The point of the phrase is that justice, value and the like aren't objective concepts, they're abstract. They exist only in our thoughts, not in reality. We have to behave as if they're real to have a functioning society, but that doesn't make them real.

 

[bokonon]

It's not that we wouldn't be machines [if there was a god], it's that there would be a reason for our existence.

It seems to me that the existence of a god wouldn't really solve the problem, it would just push the question from "What is my purpose in life?" to "What is god's purpose for my life?" The "serve god" answer is really no answer at all, since one must still choose how.

I'm quite comfortable with finding my own purpose. There's no "reason" for me to exist (beyond the fact that my parents decided to have a child), but I'm not going to waste the gift of life while it's mine to direct.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The point of the phrase is that justice, value and the like aren't objective concepts, they're abstract. They exist only in our thoughts, not in reality.

Our thoughts are part of reality.

 

[Mark Felt]

It seems to me that the existence of a god wouldn't really solve the problem, it would just push the question from "What is my purpose in life?" to "What is god's purpose for my life?" The "serve god" answer is really no answer at all, since one must still choose how.

There wouldn't be a question about the existence of that purpose, however, which I believe is the thing.

 

[Mark Felt]

Our thoughts are part of reality.

The thoughts themselves, yes. What's in them, no. They're abstract concepts. If you really want to try and reason them out as being objective, fine, but it's a fools errand.

 

[bokonon]

I could, however, show you a great many atoms that once constituted junk mail and a great many molecules that you used to grind your food.

You still couldn't show me atoms of "speed" or "time" or "volume," or atoms that were once part of something called "speed".

The point of the phrase is that justice, value and the like aren't objective concepts, they're abstract. They exist only in our thoughts, not in reality. We have to behave as if they're real to have a functioning society, but that doesn't make them real.

"Speed" and "time" are also abstract, though they may be more objective than "justice" and "value". You obviously think something called "truth" is real, or you wouldn't be arguing the truth-value of your point of view. Just because something is abstract and subjective doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The thoughts themselves, yes. What's in them, no. They're abstract concepts. If you really want to try and reason them out as being objective, fine, but it's a fools errand.

I'm not trying that. I agree they are abstract. That does not make them unreal.

 

[bokonon]

There wouldn't be a question about the existence of that purpose, however, which I believe is the thing.

It could be a deistic god, which doesn't give a damn about your purpose. It could be an Olympian god, which regards you as little more than a plaything. I still don't think accepting the existence of some god automatically banishes existential angst. Maybe believing that the god you've come to believe in endorses the purpose you've chosen for your life would give you more resolution in your pursuit of that purpose, but you'd still have to decide for yourself just what that purpose is.

 

[Mark Felt]

You still couldn't show me atoms of "speed" or "time" or "volume," or atoms that were once part of something called "speed".

"Speed" and "time" are also abstract, though they may be more objective than "justice" and "value". You obviously think something called "truth" is real, or you wouldn't be arguing the truth-value of your point of view. Just because something is abstract and subjective doesn't mean it isn't real.

I could demonstrate the existence of speed by moving a molecule. I could demonstrate time in the same manner, and I could demonstrate volume with two molecules.

That something is abstract means that it doesn't exist in reality. Show me Justice, for instance. Demonstrate to me that it exists.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

That something is abstract means that it doesn't exist in reality. Show me Justice, for instance. Demonstrate to me that it exists.

Talk about a fool's errand. You want someone to demonstrate to you that an abstract concept exists when you have already declared that abstract concepts don't exist? You do realise, I hope, that the only actual disagreement here has nothing to do with the nature of justice (or value or what have you) but only with the definition of exist?

Justice is an idea. Its presence (to avoid, for now, the word existence) is dependent upon creatures capable of having ideas. Removal of those creatures absolutely removes its presence. All that's left is whether that presence constitutes existence. That's pure semantics, and I shall engage it no further.

 

[Mark Felt]

Talk about a fool's errand. You want someone to demonstrate to you that an abstract concept exists when you have already declared that abstract concepts don't exist?

Yes, I was asking to be proven wrong.

You do realise, I hope, that the only actual disagreement here has nothing to do with the nature of justice (or value or what have you) but only with the definition of exist?

Justice is an idea. Its presence (to avoid, for now, the word existence) is dependent upon creatures capable of having ideas. Removal of those creatures absolutely removes its presence. All that's left is whether that presence constitutes existence. That's pure semantics, and I shall engage it no further.

Okay.