Love and free will... eh?

[R_Daneel]

I’ll take the human. The robot can’t think outside the box (only what is programmed), has no sense of humor and certainly cannot show any compassion for us humans. We need all 3 of those when we are down and out. I also do not like talking to machines when calling companies for help. Can’t say I care for them repeating everything I say just so they can get the words right.

Hehe, you are so right about the abysmally programmed IVR (interactive voice response) systems today. But, don’t forget, this technology is brand new. If you consider the UNIVAC computers with their radio tubes, which were able to do about 20000 multiplications a second and the modern machines, which can do many millions of MIPS and are able to beat the chess world champions there is an incredible change in a few decades. How far will this technology grow in a few hundred years?

Maybe I’m old fashioned but give me that human nurse anytime. Take care.

Don’t forget that the nurse is just an example. I spelled out the problem in details a few posts back.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So you don’t know the definition of robot? Being a robot has nothing to with being made for a specific purpose.

Plants are not robots, neither are animals, neither are stones neither are any in the natural created world. But they were all created for a specific purpose.

And we are not merely stuck inside these material bodies. If you believe in the resurrection, then once resurrected you will once again be stuck in the material body. This material body happens to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Robot: a mechanical device that can be programmed to carry out instructions and perform complicated tasks usually done by people

We are human robots, spiritually programmed to perform complex tacks. Yes, in the World-to-Come we will once again be within material bodies, but still, our souls will long to cleave to God.

Note that after death our souls go to Heaven. It is only in the World-to-Come that our souls will once again be stuck inside a material body. In Judaism, there will come a time after the World-to-Come in which our souls will once again cleave to God.

This material body is not the temple of the Holy Spirit per se, but it is our body and soul united. But what does this have to do with whether or not we are spiritual robots?

Humans like to take pride in their being, having dominion over the living things of this earth, and considering that we are merely robots in the grand scheme of things produces humility that many people can’t stand.

Just as a blind man is unable to form any idea about colors, or a deaf person to fathom what it means to hear sounds… so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul… For we live in a material world, and the only kind of pleasure we can understand is that experienced through our body. But the joys of the spirit are everlasting and ceaseless. There is no resemblance of any kind between the enjoyments of the soul and those of the body.
–The twelfth-century philosopher-rabbi, Maimonides

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You also totally ignored the part where the nurse is the patients advocate to the rest of the caregiving team.

In my case, something that really needed to be done would not have been done without one of my nurses advocating for me with the rest of the caregiving team. I could go into specifics if necessary but I do not really think I need to.

What is so special about that part? I don’t know the details to make a meaningful answer.

What’s so special about that part? Patient advocacy is one of the most importan parts especially for serious and/or chronic illnesses.

Nurses are the part of a caregiving team that has the most contact with a patient. It seems you want to replace that with an uncaring machine that can only do what it is programmed to do without any care for the patient’s well being.

This says it all to me. You do not view this aspect of care as important.

As you deem this as unimportant you do not wish to consider it in anyway.

Makes any discussion with you impossible when you refuse to acknowledge others’ experiences and what they think is important in patient care.

This disucssion is ultimatly fruitless as you have something set in your mind and you are not being open to discussing anything that does not fit that.

 

[R_Daneel]

What’s so special about that part?

You tell me. I already expressed my ignorance about the subject.

Patient advocacy is one of the most importan parts especially for serious and/or chronic illnesses.

Nurses are the part of a caregiving team that has the most contact with a patient. It seems you want to replace that with an uncaring machine that can only do what it is programmed to do without any care for the patient’s well being.

Of course they care. They are programmed to to care to give the best possible treatment for the patient. The human nurses are taught what is the best possible treatment, and so are their hypothetical robotic counterparts. I am getting tired of pointing out that in the thought experiment the human and the robotic nurses are all equally qualified, in every respect, the only difference being is that the robots lack the human emotion. And of course the fact that the robots cannot get tired, their attention is always at 100%, they never get distracted by other problems, etc…

This says it all to me. You do not view this aspect of care as important. As you deem this as unimportant you do not wish to consider it in anyway.

I already asked for the specifics - due to me ignorance. What else do you want?

Makes any discussion with you impossible when you refuse to acknowledge others’ experiences and what they think is important in patient care.

This disucssion is ultimatly fruitless as you have something set in your mind and you are not being open to discussing anything that does not fit that.

You are overreacting. I am asking for the importance. Tell me where the emotive part comes into the picture, and how does it make the human care “superior”?

 

[WHOWHIE]

Robot: a mechanical device that can be programmed to carry out instructions and perform complicated tasks usually done by people

We are human robots, spiritually programmed to perform complex tacks.

First line and it is already full of errors.

First: Humans are not mechanical devices.
Second: We are not merely programmed to create complex tasks. Programmed means that the choices are limited to the parameters within which the programmer wants the tasks executed. We have a will of our own. We can go against the desires of the “Programmer”.
Third: Human and Robots are in themselves mutually exclusive terms. That would be like saying we are metal animals. There is no such thing except for that sculpture of a dog or any other animals. A robot is a robot and humans are humans and never the twain shall meet.
Fourth: God did not create robots. Robots are by definition devoid of a will of their own. We have free will.

Yes, in the World-to-Come we will once again be within material bodies, but still, our souls will long to cleave to God.

After the ressurection our ressurected bodies will be united to God. It is not a case of the soul wanting to be freed of the material body.

Note that after death our souls go to Heaven. It is only in the World-to-Come that our souls will once again be stuck inside a material body.

Heaven is the world to come. Except that until the final judgment we are not re-united with our body.

In Judaism, there will come a time after the World-to-Come in which our souls will once again cleave to God.

Though our roots are Judaic, we are Christians. The theology is quite different.

This material body is not the temple of the Holy Spirit per se, but it is our body and soul united. But what does this have to do with whether or not we are spiritual robots?

Because we are not spirtual robots. Even your definition contradicts this statement if you will actually mull it over.

Humans like to take pride in their being, having dominion over the living things of this earth,

What does that have to do with anything?

and considering that we are merely robots in the grand scheme of things produces humility that many people can’t stand.

As I said, we are not Robots. I think it is about time you learn what Catholic teaching is since you say you are Catholic.

• Just as a blind man is unable to form any idea about colors, or a deaf person to fathom what it means to hear sounds… so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul… For we live in a material world, and the only kind of pleasure we can understand is that experienced through our body. But the joys of the spirit are everlasting and ceaseless. There is no resemblance of any kind between the enjoyments of the soul and those of the body.
  –The twelfth-century philosopher-rabbi, Maimonides*

Not exactly Catholic Church teaching.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Of course they care. They are programmed to to care to give the best possible treatment for the patient

No they don’t. A robot cannot be programmed to care because care is a human emotion

“Of course they move in response to an electronic stimuli” is the correct statement.

The human nurses are taught what is the best possible treatment, and so are their hypothetical robotic counterparts.

Again, all the hypothethical robots can do is respond to electronic stimuli and move according to this. They cannot be taught. Learning is another thing that is proper to sensient beings.

I am getting tired of pointing out that in the thought experiment the human and the robotic nurses are all equally qualified, in every respect, the only difference being is that the robots lack the human emotion.

And it is tiring to hear someone keep repeating the same error over and over again as if they are unable to read.

There is no such thing as equality between robotic and human nurses becuase there is no such thing as thought possible for robots.

Robots do not think. Or has that known fact whizzed past you.

And of course the fact that the robots cannot get tired, their attention is always at 100%, they never get distracted by other problems, etc…

Well we finally get a true statement. That would probably be the only advantage of a having a CMMECEES (a complicated mass of metal and electronic circuitry encased in silicon, a.ka. robot) handle one when one is sick. How that is an advantage is not even certain when one acknowledged the fact that circuitry malfunctions. Anyone with a computer knows that. The darng thing is “hung” or “frozen” again !!!

You are overreacting. I am asking for the importance. Tell me where the emotive part comes into the picture, and how does it make the human care “superior”?

For the very simple fact that emotiveness is not the only difference between the robot and the human. For the very simple fact that you have made a few incredibly wrong assumptions regarding the robot by giving it characteristics that are exclusively attributable to human beings.

At this stage, the only way out is to re-think your premises…and quickly.

 

[Robert_Sock]

WHOWHIE,

Thank for taking the time to respond to my post.

I still believe, however, that God created us to be “robot-like” and that all earthly technology comes from hell. I also still believe that our soul is enslaved with these bodies here in this world.

Thanks again!

Robert

 

[JDaniel]

jd,
I thank you for your prayers but I find this reply very dismissive.

You do not comment on anything I have said.

If this is how you wish to carry on the discussion I will make it a point to move on then.

Byz:

Whoa, sorry. I thought I heard you indicate that you were battling cancer. That’s what I was responding to. I wasn’t ready to respond to anything you said, so I wasn’t being “dismissive” - in any way, shape, or form!

Anyway,

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Please, do not get lost or get sidetracked in the technical details. The thread uses the “nurse” only as an example to investigate one question only: “what does ‘volition’ add to ‘agape’?”. Please concentrate on that.

RD:

It adds the dimension of true realness, as opposed to artificiality - which God would know, and, if we would know.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If I knew what volition and agape meant in this context, I’d be happy to oblige…

Moon:

I’m sure you’ve already looked them up, but, just in case, “volition” means “from the (a human’s) will, desire, or choice.” “Agape,” is a word for “the most perfect Love.”

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

It adds the dimension of true realness, as opposed to artificiality - which God would know, and, if we would know.

And the point is the supposed difference between the “real” and the “artifical”. Why is the “real” or natural better?

If one thinks about a crude, artifical glass eye, or a plastic replacement of a lost limb, of course the “artifical” is vastly inferior - today, with today’s technology. But that is not necessarily so. As technology advances, the replacement can easily surpass the original. An artifical eye may even see parts of the spectrum which in not visible to the original eye, the artificial arm can be much stronget and more flexible… etc. I am sure you see what I mean.

So the assumed theory that the natural is always “better” or more desirable than the “artificical” is invalid. They can be equally useful, or the artificial can be better. You said that the “realness” is more valuable, but never said “why is it more valuable”? We have not covered even one step toward establishing that idea.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moon:

I’m sure you’ve already looked them up, but, just in case, “volition” means “from the (a human’s) will, desire, or choice.” “Agape,” is a word for “the most perfect Love.”

God bless,
jd

To be honest I hadn’t. I knew the volition one, but I thought agape meant astonished.

 

[WHOWHIE]

To be honest I hadn’t. I knew the volition one, but I thought agape meant astonished.

So now we know why the discussion is going nowhere

 

[JDaniel]

And the point is the supposed difference between the “real” and the “artifical”. Why is the “real” or natural better?

If one thinks about a crude, artifical glass eye, or a plastic replacement of a lost limb, of course the “artifical” is vastly inferior - today, with today’s technology. But that is not necessarily so. As technology advances, the replacement can easily surpass the original. An artifical eye may even see parts of the spectrum which in not visible to the original eye, the artificial arm can be much stronget and more flexible… etc. I am sure you see what I mean.

So the assumed theory that the natural is always “better” or more desirable than the “artificical” is invalid. They can be equally useful, or the artificial can be better. You said that the “realness” is more valuable, but never said “why is it more valuable”? We have not covered even one step toward establishing that idea.

But, God created a natural world, not an artificial one. God created a real world, not an artificial one. Why would the Creator of a real world desire artificial love? So, we’re right back where we started!

God bless,
jd

 

[WHOWHIE]

RD:

It adds the dimension of true realness, as opposed to artificiality - which God would know, and, if we would know.

God bless,
jd

Please do not get sucked in to RD’s irrational premises.

Volition is not adding true realness. Is there such a thing as true realness? This is absurd. I think that if you keep playing according to his game you will find that you will end up posting irrational conclusions…

Agape is simply that, a free willing of the good of the other. To ask how Free Will adds to something that is by definition freely willed is absurd.

He is asking how does barking add to dogness. Barking is is part of dogness. It does not add to dogness It just is.

Don’t play his game. Stand apart and analyze his statements dispassionately and expose the lie and weakness. The devil is in the detail.

 

[JDaniel]

And the point is the supposed difference between the “real” and the “artifical”. Why is the “real” or natural better?

If one thinks about a crude, artifical glass eye, or a plastic replacement of a lost limb, of course the “artifical” is vastly inferior - today, with today’s technology. But that is not necessarily so. As technology advances, the replacement can easily surpass the original. An artifical eye may even see parts of the spectrum which in not visible to the original eye, the artificial arm can be much stronget and more flexible… etc. I am sure you see what I mean.

So the assumed theory that the natural is always “better” or more desirable than the “artificical” is invalid. They can be equally useful, or the artificial can be better. You said that the “realness” is more valuable, but never said “why is it more valuable”? We have not covered even one step toward establishing that idea.

RD:

I would think real love is better to God, in this instance, because it is from the heart and soul of a real person who could say no, not the wires and programs of an artificial robot-thing.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

But, God created a natural world, not an artificial one. God created a real world, not an artificial one. Why would the Creator of a real world desire artificial love? So, we’re right back where we started!

But you don’t use your fist to pound in a nail into a plank of wood, you use a hammer. You don’t walk days and weeks and months if you wish to get to faraway place, you use a car, or an airplane. Even the Amish use some artifiical implements, though they arbitrarily drew a line a few hundred years ago. We created an artifical world around us, and our life is incomparably better for it. (Of course technology created its own problems, but almost no one would willingly go out to the wilderness, and collect roots and berries to gain sustenance from them.)

I would think real love is better to God, in this instance, because it is from the heart and soul of a real person who could say no, not the wires and programs of an artificial robot-thing.

I don’t argue that part. Again, what does the ability to say “no” add to the helping process of agape? We don’t seem to get ahead on that part.

 

[R_Daneel]

Take a firefighter, for another example, who will risk his life (and sometimes lose it) in the process of rescuing someone from a burning building. That is a perfect example to “agape”. The robot would never hesitate, and also has a much better chance of success. It is not called “agape”, because the definition contains that “free will” stipulation - but it is a much more desirable solution of the helping process.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Take a firefighter, for another example, who will risk his life (and sometimes lose it) in the process of rescuing someone from a burning building. That is a perfect example to “agape”. The robot would never hesitate, and also has a much better chance of success. It is not called “agape”, because the definition contains that “free will” stipulation - but it is a much more desirable solution of the helping process.

Another example that does not apply. I don’t know what sort of thinking you’re using here.

Picture a burning building.

Someone sends a robot. A robot would not hesitate because it is incapable of assessing the danger! Who does the assessing? Well blow me down if it ain’t a human programmer!

What makes the robot move. The programmer. And voila, surprise, surprise, the programmer is (drum roll….) human!

Here’s another scenario.

Scenario No1. You’re trapped in a burning building. Someone sends a robot. But aghast, the human controlling the robot suffers a heart attack and dies on the spot. There is no one else who knows how to operate the unintelligent machine.
End of story? You’re still stuck there waiting to go up in flames…. with a melting piece of machine for company.

Scenario No2. A robot is in place to rescue you. Because of the fire, connection to the control room was cut off. The robot short circuited and just keep moving directionless. It is moving towards you. It doesn’t stop. Then it proceeds to walk all over you crushing your bones.

The fire was stopped and you would have been okay had it not been for the danged robot who crushed you dead.

RD, You’ve still got time to put a little bit of thinking into your scenarios you know before you dig yourself deeper into ……

I am quite amused by this profound and unwavering faith you display. On robots.

 

[WHOWHIE]

RD, This is getting worse and worse
"JDaniel:

But, God created a natural world, not an artificial one. God created a real world, not an artificial one. Why would the Creator of a real world desire artificial love? So, we’re right back where we started!

You replied

But you don’t use your fist to pound in a nail into a plank of wood, you use a hammer. You don’t walk days and weeks and months if you wish to get to faraway place, you use a car, or an airplane. Even the Amish use some artifiical implements, though they arbitrarily drew a line a few hundred years ago. We created an artifical world around us, and our life is incomparably better for it. (Of course technology created its own problems, but almost no one would willingly go out to the wilderness, and collect roots and berries to gain sustenance from them.)

What in the world has that got to do with whether the Creator wants real love?!
This conversation sounds like
JD: So how is your health?
RD: The bus was late because of an accident on the highway
JD: No I asked you how your health is
RD: Well, they are saying that the tide this evening will be higher than forecasted.