Could something which is designed act on its own?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PseuTonym said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct on your observation. There are situations that we might be forced to choose a specific option. There are also situations that we are free to choose between options.
 
STT said:
You are correct on your observation. There are situations that we might be forced to choose a specific option. There are also situations that we are free to choose between options.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should focus attention on what is deliberately chosen. We don’t say that a person who was trying to win a game of chess deliberately lost, although losing might be the ultimate consequence of the sequence of options deliberately chosen.

Somebody who believes that an above-ground shelter is safe might feel free to choose that option, and not survive the choice.
 
STT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still fail to see how you reach “a created being cannot act on its own.”
 
PseuTonym said:
Maybe you should focus attention on what is deliberately chosen. We don’t say that a person who was trying to win a game of chess deliberately lost, although losing might be the ultimate consequence of the sequence of options deliberately chosen.
Click to expand...
We can agree about that. That is because of existence of uncertainty in chess that what a move eventually leads to in mid-game.
PseuTonym said:
Somebody who believes that an above-ground shelter is safe might feel free to choose that option, and not survive the choice.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But we are not talking about belief here. The person can deliberately choose between these shelter if s/he believes they are safe equally.
 
STT said:
we are not talking about belief here. The person can deliberately choose between these shelter if s/he believes they are safe equally.
Click to expand...
Do you read your own messages before you click on “Submit Reply”?
 
Wesrock said:
Still fail to see how you reach “a created being cannot act on its own.”
Click to expand...
We have to put these facts together:
  1. Something which has parts cannot act on its own
  2. Something which is created has parts since it has a design
First fact: This is derived from OP. This is true because an act cannot be initiated by a part since other parts becomes useless. This questions the design. We wanted to create something which can act on its own yet we conclude that such a design cannot exist. Therefore the thing cannot act on its own.

Second fact: Something which is created has parts because the knowledge needed for its creation is structured.
 
STT said:
We have to put these facts together:
  1. Something which has parts cannot act on its own
Click to expand...
No. A self-driving car with an internal random number generator can set itself a destination on a map and drive there. Wait a random number of minutes and then drive to a new random destination. All actions are generated within the one machine. One part generates the next action while other parts carry out that action.

For a pure action (without getting into wishes or desires and the like) then such a mechanical system is sufficient. Something like “Drive to Times Square” is an action, and can be generated by picking a random point on a map of New York.

rossum
 
rossum said:
No. A self-driving car with an internal random number generator can set itself a destination on a map and drive there. Wait a random number of minutes and then drive to a new random destination. All actions are generated within the one machine. One part generates the next action while other parts carry out that action.

For a pure action (without getting into wishes or desires and the like) then such a mechanical system is sufficient. Something like “Drive to Times Square” is an action, and can be generated by picking a random point on a map of New York.

rossum
Click to expand...
A self-driving car presupposes a designer… 🙂
 
STT said:
We have to put these facts together:
  1. Something which has parts cannot act on its own
  2. Something which is created has parts since it has a design
First fact: This is derived from OP. This is true because an act cannot be initiated by a part since other parts becomes useless. This questions the design. We wanted to create something which can act on its own yet we conclude that such a design cannot exist. Therefore the thing cannot act on its own.

Second fact: Something which is created has parts because the knowledge needed for its creation is structured.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a fact that a person consists of parts! That assumption is based on an atomistic view of reality…
 
tonyrey said:
A self-driving car presupposes a designer… 🙂
Click to expand...
Designer or designers (plural). Look at the thread title: “Could something which is designed act on its own?” (emphasis added)

The thread title requires something designed, and hence requires designer/s.

rossum
 
tonyrey said:
It isn’t a fact that a person consists of parts! That assumption is based on an atomistic view of reality…
Click to expand...
Exactly. How about a person who loses a limb? They are still the same person.
 
rossum said:
No. A self-driving car with an internal random number generator can set itself a destination on a map and drive there. Wait a random number of minutes and then drive to a new random destination. All actions are generated within the one machine. One part generates the next action while other parts carry out that action.

For a pure action (without getting into wishes or desires and the like) then such a mechanical system is sufficient. Something like “Drive to Times Square” is an action, and can be generated by picking a random point on a map of New York.

rossum
Click to expand...
I think we already discuss this.
 
STT said:
I think we already discuss this.
Click to expand...
We did. You moved to the nature of the “wishes” etc. within the deigned mechanism. See your post #24, which talks about “wishes”.

In your post #47 you claimed: “1) Something which has parts cannot act on its own”

You used the word “act”, not “wishes”. Acts can be observed externally. My proposed self-drive car with RNG can be observed to act on its own. It generates a destination inside itself and it acts to move to that destination. That car is “something which has parts and can act on its own.”

Your first claim in post#47 was incorrect.

rossum
 
rossum said:
We did. You moved to the nature of the “wishes” etc. within the deigned mechanism. See your post #24, which talks about “wishes”.

In your post #47 you claimed: “1) Something which has parts cannot act on its own”

You used the word “act”, not “wishes”. Acts can be observed externally. My proposed self-drive car with RNG can be observed to act on its own. It generates a destination inside itself and it acts to move to that destination. That car is “something which has parts and can act on its own.”

Your first claim in post#47 was incorrect.

rossum
Click to expand...
I already explained what I mean with act on its own. By this I mean that a system can initiate an act whenever it wants therefore post #47 stands given the definition.
 
STT said:
I already explained what I mean with act on its own. By this I mean that a system can initiate an act whenever it wants therefore post #47 stands given the definition.
Click to expand...
That is not the usual definition of “act”, as in the thread title. You are introducing the idea of “want” which is outside the usual definition of “act”. A jellyfish can act, but can it be said to “want”? It does not even have a brain. A jellyfish can sting you; did it “want” to sting you?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top