Could something which is designed act on its own?

[PseuTonym]

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

I agree completely. So I also disagree somewhat with what I wrote.

Non-representational sculpture may have exactly one part.

If you agree with that (slightly edited version of what you wrote), then we are in complete agreement.

 

[STT]

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

Well, the argument is about the fact that a self-activating robot cannot act on its own.

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.

This is totally an irrelevant example. Please read previous posts for more information.

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.

Can you make a part which can work on its own?

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

rossum

You totally misunderstood the argument.

 

[rossum]

Well, the argument is about the fact that a self-activating robot cannot act on its own.

Of course it can. We already have self-driving cars. Are they impossible?

If you want it to act on its own then put in a true random number generator (perhaps based on radioactive decay) to pick a destination on the map. Then it self-drives to that destination. Wait for a random time interval and then move to a new randomly selected destination. All internally generated. An RNG can generate tasks for a self-acting robot.

This is totally an irrelevant example. Please read previous posts for more information.

Your OP said: “Something which has design has to have parts” It was that specifically which I was commenting on.

Can you make a part which can work on its own?

Yes. A radioactive atom will decay on its own with no external (name removed by moderator)ut. If you consider that an atom has parts, then there are subatomic particles which will decay on their own with no external (name removed by moderator)ut, neutrons or muons for example. Even neutrinos will switch between the three different flavors with no external (name removed by moderator)ut.

rossum

 

[STT]

Of course it can. We already have self-driving cars. Are they impossible?

This type of car cannot initiate an act. It works based on simple algorithm.

If you want it to act on its own then put in a true random number generator (perhaps based on radioactive decay) to pick a destination on the map. Then it self-drives to that destination. Wait for a random time interval and then move to a new randomly selected destination. All internally generated. An RNG can generate tasks for a self-acting robot.

We are talking about an system which can act whenever it wishes so using random number is completely irrelevant.

Your OP said: “Something which has design has to have parts” It was that specifically which I was commenting on.

That is not what we mean with design.

Yes. A radioactive atom will decay on its own with no external (name removed by moderator)ut. If you consider that an atom has parts, then there are subatomic particles which will decay on their own with no external (name removed by moderator)ut, neutrons or muons for example. Even neutrinos will switch between the three different flavors with no external (name removed by moderator)ut.

rossum

We are not talking about random events.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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.

Of course the soul is created by God and therefore is designed by God. As far as it having parts in a sense is a wrong question to ask. Only physical material things have parts. God himself has no parts and is pure Spirit. And that is all I care to spend on this question as I can see that it is fruitless.

 

[STT]

Of course the soul is created by God and therefore is designed by God. As far as it having parts in a sense is a wrong question to ask. Only physical material things have parts. God himself has no parts and is pure Spirit. And that is all I care to spend on this question as I can see that it is fruitless.

The problem is that soul has to have parts if it is designed. Why? Because God should know how to design soul. Knowledge however is structured meaning that soul has to have structure too.

 

[davidv]

The problem is that soul has to have parts if it is designed. Why? Because God should know how to design soul. Knowledge however is structured meaning that soul has to have structure too.

This does not explain why a soul has to have parts. Too many human assumptions are being assigned to God.

 

[STT]

This does not explain why a soul has to have parts. Too many human assumptions are being assigned to God.

No. God is omniscient and omnipotent. These we can agree upon. Omniscient is knowledge of everything. Knowledge however is structured. Hence the creation in general has structure. This means that soul has parts. Therefore God cannot create something which has no parts or design.

 

[rossum]

We are talking about an system which can act whenever it wishes so using random number is completely irrelevant.

Does a snail have “wishes”? Does an earthworm? A jellyfish? Are they able to act on their own? A jellyfish does not even have a brain. You need to define “wishes” more clearly here.

That is not what we mean with design.

I am not following you here. Are you saying that a sculpture, or a metal casting, is not designed? Some designs have multiple parts; other designs have only one single part. I do not see why you have a problem with that.

We are not talking about random events.

We are talking about internally generated events. Radioactive decay is an internally generated event.

rossum

 

[STT]

Does a snail have “wishes”? Does an earthworm? A jellyfish? Are they able to act on their own? A jellyfish does not even have a brain.

They are of course very complex system and can work on their own. I am not sure if they can want as we do.

You need to define “wishes” more clearly here.

By wish I simply meant want.

I am not following you here. Are you saying that a sculpture, or a metal casting, is not designed? Some designs have multiple parts; other designs have only one single part. I do not see why you have a problem with that.

They of course have design. By design I mean some sort of plan in order to build a thing with ability to act on its own.

We are talking about internally generated events. Radioactive decay is an internally generated event.

rossum

Yes, but the process is random.

 

[rossum]

They are of course very complex system and can work on their own. I am not sure if they can want as we do.

We seem to agree that is is possible to design a machine which can generate its own tasks internally – a self-driving car with an internal random number generator for example.

The discussion seems now to have moved away from machines/design into the realm of philosophy; defining “want”, “wish”, “desire” and the like. I am less interested in that sort of philosophical discussion.

It is possible to design and build a machine which can internally generate its own tasks. To me that answers your initial question in the affirmative. Beyond that we are into the realm of philosophical abstraction, which I shall leave to others.

rossum

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

If it was designed to have free will then it could act on its own.

 

[PseuTonym]

Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
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.

Suppose that a dog wanders into an area where there are warning signs “Danger: High Voltage.” Suppose that the dog disregards the signs (because the dog cannot read). Suppose that, while trying to get some food, the dog comes into direct, physical contact with high-voltage wires. Suppose that the electricity kills the dog.

Would you say that the dog deliberately electrocuted itself? After all, the dog behaved with disregard for the external force of high voltage electricity.

 

[STT]

If it was designed to have free will then it could act on its own.

It seems that you didn’t read the argument carefully enough. So I repeat it here again: “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.”

 

[STT]

Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
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?

Suppose that a dog wanders into an area where there are warning signs “Danger: High Voltage.” Suppose that the dog disregards the signs (because the dog cannot read). Suppose that, while trying to get some food, the dog comes into direct, physical contact with high-voltage wires. Suppose that the electricity kills the dog.

Would you say that the dog deliberately electrocuted itself?

No.

After all, the dog behaved with disregard for the external force of high voltage electricity.

The dog was not aware of the situation so he is not act disregard to external force.

 

[PseuTonym]

The dog was not aware of the situation so he is not act disregard to external force.

Are you looking at your answer in connection with the sequence of questions and answers that led up to it?

My impression is that the original question “can something which is designed act on its own” is meaningless because the verb phrase “act on its own” is interpreted differently depending on what entity is acting.

For acting deliberately, we already have a problem. You claim that if the dog wasn’t aware of the situation, then the dog didn’t act in disregard to external forces. However, if acting deliberately requires awareness, then a machine requires awareness in order to act deliberately. What does it mean to say that a machine has awareness?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems that you didn’t read the argument carefully enough. So I repeat it here again: “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.”

So what do you call a reflex action? Like the knee jerk reaction. Or an eye blink? That is a part acting on it’s own. It doesn’t render the rest of my body useless.

 

[STT]

Are you looking at your answer in connection with the sequence of questions and answers that led up to it?

Sure.

My impression is that the original question “can something which is designed act on its own” is meaningless because the verb phrase “act on its own” is interpreted differently depending on what entity is acting.

The phrase is not meaningless. Act on its own simply in this context means that a agent can initiate an act. Sorry if this was not very clear.

For acting deliberately, we already have a problem. You claim that if the dog wasn’t aware of the situation, then the dog didn’t act in disregard to external forces. However, if acting deliberately requires awareness, then a machine requires awareness in order to act deliberately. What does it mean to say that a machine has awareness?

Be in the same state as you are, conscious.

 

[STT]

So what do you call a reflex action? Like the knee jerk reaction. Or an eye blink? That is a part acting on it’s own. It doesn’t render the rest of my body useless.

Consider the following argument. God should know what intellect is in order to create it. The knowledge is structured therefore any created being has parts. This means that God cannot create something which has no design. Therefore a created being cannot act on its own considering (OP).

This means that human cannot act on its own if He is created.

 

[PseuTonym]

Deliberately means freely or disregard to external forces.

If there is a tornado and you seek shelter underground, then are you not acting deliberately? Having regard for the external forces of wind, you avoid an above-ground shelter. You aren’t behaving freely, because if you ignore the tornado then you have a significant risk of death or serious injury. You are compelled by the situation to seek shelter, and you seek shelter with regard for the particular external forces that endanger you.