Could something which is designed act on its own?

[STT]

Think of something which can act on its own and has a design. Something which has design has to have parts otherwise design becomes a meaningless term. An act cannot be initiated by a part since otherwise the rest of parts become useless. This applies to all parts. Therefore something which has design cannot act on its own.

We however believe that human is designed and created by God. We can also believe that human is the result of chance. It doesn’t really matter. Now the question is how could human act on its own?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Could something that is not designed act on its own? At least with the design you have intelligence behind the design. For design implies intelligence. No design implies no intelligence. Would we expect something made with no intelligence to fare better than something designed with intelligence? Would 1000 monkeys typing random keystrokes on a keyboard come out with a better play than Shakespeare?

The question is answered by who is the designer and who is the design. For man is designed by God who has given him intellect and will. There can be no question that God is capable of such as design. And Looking at man we clearly see him using intellect and will. So it seems the question is answered and reality and common sense really do illustrate it.

Even if 1000 monkeys in a million years came out with something that rivaled Shakespeare who really cares? The monkeys themselves could never understand what they have written. It would be about as interesting as a sonnet written by a computer without feeling or emotion. But, at least the computer was designed by a man to perform the task. Whereas the monkeys were not designed to type but to swing from trees and eat bananas. Something that is designed is designed for a purpose. In a sense It acts on its own each time it fulfils that purpose. For it has the freedom to fulfil its purpose. Which is more freedom than it had when it did not exist and had no freedom to fulfil any purpose.

 

[STT]

Could something that is not designed act on its own? At least with the design you have intelligence behind the design.

Of course bold part is true.

For design implies intelligence. No design implies no intelligence.

We are talking about initiating an act and not intelligence. I am very sorry if it was not very clear.

Would we expect something made with no intelligence to fare better than something designed with intelligence?

I do think that the structure is important.

Would 1000 monkeys typing random keystrokes on a keyboard come out with a better play than Shakespeare?

They of course cannot. This is however of topic so lets put it aside.

The question is answered by who is the designer and who is the design. For man is designed by God who has given him intellect and will. There can be no question that God is capable of such as design. And Looking at man we clearly see him using intellect and will. So it seems the question is answered and reality and common sense really do illustrate it.

You didn’t really argue what is wrong with the argument in OP considering the fact that we are talking about initiating an act. You of course can believe whatever you like. DO you know what is wrong with the argument in OP?

Even if 1000 monkeys in a million years came out with something that rivaled Shakespeare who really cares? The monkeys themselves could never understand what they have written. It would be about as interesting as a sonnet written by a computer without feeling or emotion. But, at least the computer was designed by a man to perform the task. Whereas the monkeys were not designed to type but to swing from trees and eat bananas. Something that is designed is designed for a purpose. In a sense It acts on its own each time it fulfills that purpose. For it has the freedom to fulfill its purpose. Which is more freedom than it had when it did not exist and had no freedom to fulfill any purpose.

This is of topic so lets put it aside.

 

[PseuTonym]

An act cannot be initiated by a part since otherwise the rest of parts become useless.

How about sneezing? How about involuntary and complex behavior, such as what your digestive system does to digest food? It sounds as though you are assuming that all acts are complex and conscious. However, when you struggle to remember something, you cannot perform the search consciously as you might plan a search for a missing person, because the links between your memories are invisible to you.

If you are thirsty, then a part of you signals to your awareness a feeling of thirst. You can then choose to ignore and tolerate the thirst, or develop a plan to relieve the thirst. Usually, the planning isn’t very complicated. People usually live in environments where drinkable water is available.

 

[STT]

How about sneezing? How about involuntary and complex behavior, such as what your digestive system does to digest food?

They are simple reflex to a stimulus.

It sounds as though you are assuming that all acts are complex and conscious.

I don’t think so but here we are talking about the fact that how a system with a specific design can initiate an act.

However, when you struggle to remember something, you cannot perform the search consciously as you might plan a search for a missing person, because the links between your memories are invisible to you.

I don’t understand how recalling a memory works too. It is partly conscious and partly unconscious. You know consciously that what are you looking for but you cannot remember it.

If you are thirsty, then a part of you signals to your awareness a feeling of thirst. You can then choose to ignore and tolerate the thirst, or develop a plan to relieve the thirst. Usually, the planning isn’t very complicated. People usually live in environments where drinkable water is available.

This we understand. The main question is whether human can initiate and act. Otherwise we are simply an complex dynamcal instruction processing (name removed by moderator)uts and producing outputs.

 

[PseuTonym]

something which has design cannot act on its own.

If you seek water, then are you acting “on your own”?
You relied upon your sense of thirst to give you a signal, and you rely on the environment to make progress in your attempt to relieve your thirst.

You could have a coin that says “drink water” on one side, and “not yet” on the other side. You could flip the coin and obey what it says. If it said “not yet” and you are still thirsty, then you can wait 30 seconds and then flip the coin again.

If you can obey the command on a coin that you flipped, then why can’t you make your own decision? You might flip “not yet”, wait 30 seconds, flip “not yet” again, wait thirty seconds, and then flip “not yet” a third time. Then you might decide to ignore the command and drink the water immediately, without waiting thirty seconds, and without flipping the coin again.

 

[fisherman_carl]

They are simple reflex to a stimulus.

I don’t think so but here we are talking about the fact that how a system with a specific design can initiate an act.

I don’t understand how recalling a memory works too. It is partly conscious and partly unconscious. You know consciously that what are you looking for but you cannot remember it.

This we understand. The main question is whether human can initiate and act. Otherwise we are simply an complex dynamcal instruction processing (name removed by moderator)uts and producing outputs.

The initiative for a human act is the intellect and will as I have mentioned before. This is not a biological function. It is not the brain. It is the immaterial mind and thus does not have the same limitations as something physical. I would agree that something purely physical can not have intellect or will. Something composed of merely physical parts acts according to its physical processes within the system. It can not have a will to choose. Nor can it have a mind to abstract from itself.

 

[PseuTonym]

something which has design cannot act on its own.

You are making a claim that something cannot be.

It has been said that an OUGHT (a statement about morality or ethics) cannot be derived from “IS” statements.

Can a “CAN BE” statement be derived from “IS” statements?

 

[STT]

If you seek water, then are you acting “on your own”?
You relied upon your sense of thirst to give you a signal, and you rely on the environment to make progress in your attempt to relieve your thirst.

You could have a coin that says “drink water” on one side, and “not yet” on the other side. You could flip the coin and obey what it says. If it said “not yet” and you are still thirsty, then you can wait 30 seconds and then flip the coin again.

If you can obey the command on a coin that you flipped, then why can’t you make your own decision? You might flip “not yet”, wait 30 seconds, flip “not yet” again, wait thirty seconds, and then flip “not yet” a third time. Then you might decide to ignore the command and drink the water immediately, without waiting thirty seconds, and without flipping the coin again.

Yes. The question is exactly that, whether we can initiate an act or decide in simple word. Otherwise we are simply an complex dynamical instruction processing (name removed by moderator)uts and producing outputs. This is argued in the OP that something with design cannot initiate an act so the question is whether you can find what is wrong with the argument.

 

[STT]

The initiative for a human act is the intellect and will as I have mentioned before. This is not a biological function. It is not the brain. It is the immaterial mind and thus does not have the same limitations as something physical. I would agree that something purely physical can not have intellect or will. Something composed of merely physical parts acts according to its physical processes within the system. It can not have a will to choose. Nor can it have a mind to abstract from itself.

Yes, this you already mentioned. The question is whether soul has a design or not. If yes then the argument in OP follows otherwise one has to explain how creation of soul is possible without any design.

 

[STT]

You are making a claim that something cannot be.

I think we are talking about something cannot do instead of something cannot be.

It has been said that an OUGHT (a statement about morality or ethics) cannot be derived from “IS” statements.

I am aware of that. Do you have any reference for that?

Can a “CAN BE” statement be derived from “IS” statements?

I don’t know.

 

[PseuTonym]

Yes. The question is exactly that, whether we can initiate an act or decide

In a sense, the flip of a coin is making the decision for you, if you have a habit of flipping the coin and obeying the instruction that appears after you flip the coin. From the point of view of an outside observer, there may be a very strong correlation between what the coin tells you to do, and what you do.

However, if on rare occasions you disobey the coin, then there are at least two possibilities. Maybe you intended to obey, but forgot or made a mistake. Or maybe you decided to deliberately disobey the instruction from the coin. However, if you are talking about an entity that could be a machine, then what does the word “deliberately” mean?

When you obey the instruction produced by a coin flip, are you deciding? You have to provide a “Yes” or “No” answer to that question. What do you mean by the word “initiate” or the word “decide” if you are talking about an entity that could be a machine or a person?

the question is whether you can find what is wrong with the argument.

If you want to talk about a machine that “initiates” or “decides”, then you need to say what that means. For a person, we already have a concept of what it means to “initiate” or “decide”, so you have to either accept that meaning or change your argument.

 

[po18guy]

Asking this question answers itself. You are not a random blob, but an organism that evidences design.

 

[Wesrock]

Think of something which can act on its own and has a design. Something which has design has to have parts otherwise design becomes a meaningless term. An act cannot be initiated by a part since otherwise the rest of parts become useless. This applies to all parts. Therefore something which has design cannot act on its own.

I fail to follow this line of argument. An angel is designed but is metaphysically very simple. And why can a part not initiate an act?

Parts of this do sound similar to philosophy of the mind. The intellect is understood to be simple and not made of parts for some of the reasons you’ve described. It has, by design, an intrinsic power to direct it’s own will. This is not to say it is unaffected by external actors, but it directs itself because it’s in its nature/“design” to have this faculty.

I really don’t understand where this “something that has design cannot direct itself” idea is coming from. It seems to be taking as a given a materialist and deterministic world view, but I reject that limited conception of causation, and certainly classical philosophy should not be interpreted through that lens, because the classical philosophers have nothing of the sort in mind.

 

[rossum]

Think of something which can act on its own and has a design.

OK, I’m thinking of a self-activating robot.

Something which has design has to have parts otherwise design becomes a meaningless term.

No. A sculptor designs the statue, which may only have a single part: the carved piece of marble. The sculpture is designed, but only has one part. Your logic is faulty somewhere.

An act cannot be initiated by a part since otherwise the rest of parts become useless. This applies to all parts. Therefore something which has design cannot act on its own.

No. One part is designed to initiate actions while other parts are designed to carry out those actions. A self-acting robot may have one processor to initiate actions, with other parts, such as a limb, to carry out the actions determined by the processor.

We however believe that human is designed and created by God. We can also believe that human is the result of chance. It doesn’t really matter. Now the question is how could human act on its own?

You logic was in error, so there is no question to answer.

rossum

 

[PseuTonym]

Posted by STT:
“Something which has design has to have parts otherwise design becomes a meaningless term.”

No. A sculptor designs the statue, which may only have a single part: the carved piece of marble. The sculpture is designed, but only has one part.

You identified an example of equivocation in the argument. A statue of a person does have parts, such as legs, arms, and a head. However, they aren’t moving parts. When the argument refers to action, it is clear that there are supposed to be moving parts. A statue is a good example of something that doesn’t have moving parts.

It is the effort of the reader to understand that produces different, alternative versions of the original. To avoid confusion, those different versions should be written out by STT and given different labels. The meaning of a given word shifts as the argument proceeds, so that the original argument is incoherent. It is a willingness to ignore errors that generates confusion.

 

[STT]

In a sense, the flip of a coin is making the decision for you, if you have a habit of flipping the coin and obeying the instruction that appears after you flip the coin. From the point of view of an outside observer, there may be a very strong correlation between what the coin tells you to do, and what you do.

This we can agree upon.

However, if on rare occasions you disobey the coin, then there are at least two possibilities. Maybe you intended to obey, but forgot or made a mistake. Or maybe you decided to deliberately disobey the instruction from the coin. However, if you are talking about an entity that could be a machine, then what does the word “deliberately” mean?

Deliberately means freely or disregard to external forces.

When you obey the instruction produced by a coin flip, are you deciding? You have to provide a “Yes” or “No” answer to that question.

Yes, because I act afterward. The moment in which I pick up the glass of water and drink
is decided too. This is explained in more details in the next comment.

What do you mean by the word “initiate” or the word “decide” if you are talking about an entity that could be a machine or a person?

If you want to talk about a machine that “initiates” or “decides”, then you need to say what that means. For a person, we already have a concept of what it means to “initiate” or “decide”, so you have to either accept that meaning or change your argument.

Well, lets imagine a situation which is defined as a state of affair with many options and you are allowed to choose one option. You are thinking of your choices and suddenly decide to pick up your favorite option. There are two processes involved in any decision, choosing the option and choosing the moment that you choose your option where the second process is initiated because it deals with the moment that you choose.

 

[STT]

Asking this question answers itself. You are not a random blob, but an organism that evidences design.

Yes, that is all the argument in OP about. Do you have any objection to that?

 

[STT]

I fail to follow this line of argument. An angel is designed but is metaphysically very simple. And why can a part not initiate an act?

In principle could, such as God or consciousness, but in principle cannot be created. This is illustrated in the next comment.

Parts of this do sound similar to philosophy of the mind. The intellect is understood to be simple and not made of parts for some of the reasons you’ve described.

But why something which has no design cannot be created? That is an important question since God should know what intellect is in order to create it. The knowledge is structured therefore any created being has a design, has parts. Hence God cannot create something which has no design.

It has, by design, an intrinsic power to direct it’s own will. This is not to say it is unaffected by external actors, but it directs itself because it’s in its nature/“design” to have this faculty.

This is the part that I have problem with, nature. My problem is illustrated in the previous comment.

I really don’t understand where this “something that has design cannot direct itself” idea is coming from. It seems to be taking as a given a materialist and deterministic world view, but I reject that limited conception of causation, and certainly classical philosophy should not be interpreted through that lens, because the classical philosophers have nothing of the sort in mind.

I agree that something which has no part in principle could act on its own, consciousness and God.

 

[rossum]

A statue of a person does have parts, such as legs, arms, and a head.

I disagree somewhat. A statue is not a person. A person has hands; the statue may have representations of hands, but those representations are not actually hands.

A sculpture of a hand is not a hand.

Non-representational sculpture may not have more than one part: Sphere.

rossum