Love and free will... eh?

[Magdalena09]

I recall the “forecast” by Bill Gates, when he said: “640KB will always be enough”, and the CEO of IBM who said: “I can foresee that there might be a need for 4 or 5 mainframe computers in the whole world”, and innumerable other ones, where the “experts” made a prediction, and it only earned them some virtual eggs of their face.

We are referring to two different things. I am referring to a creation of God that cannot be duplicated. You are referring to a human invention which, obviously, could and still can be improved and re-created. I am referring to a creation that can only truly be improved by the supernatural grace of God. What sets humans apart from the rest of creation can only come from God. He breathed life into Adam. We could never duplicate that; we are not God. It’s apples and oranges.

 

[R_Daneel]

We are referring to two different things. I am referring to a creation of God that cannot be duplicated. You are referring to a human invention which, obviously, could and still can be improved and re-created. I am referring to a creation that can only truly be improved by the supernatural grace of God. What sets humans apart from the rest of creation can only come from God. He breathed life into Adam. We could never duplicate that; we are not God. It’s apples and oranges.

I had to go back and check the thread. Been a while. You said that there will never be intelligent beings created by us, who can emulate (not duplicate!) a human being. You were quite adamant about your prediction. That is why I brought up the malfunctioned “prophecies” of Bill Gates and other experts.

We can only make one surefire prediction about the future: “no matter what we predict, it will be incorrect in one respect or another”. I simply created a hypothetical scenario, where an android, or robot, or homunculus, whatever, that can perform complex tasks (like a nurse or a firefighter) and whose behavior is “programmed” to perform as necessary without the internal freedom to refuse its task. It will be as helpful as any human would. It would display the necessary emotions.

My question was (and still is, since there was not one meaningful answer): in what way are the actions of this “creature” inferior to the comparable actions of a human being, who has one special attribute, namely he or she can decide NOT to perform the designated task. Why is the freedom to refuse to help an “advantage”? If anything, I would say it is a disadvantage. It has been many pages now. Not one meaningful answer. So sad.

 

[Alindawyl]

My question was (and still is, since there was not one meaningful answer): in what way are the actions of this “creature” inferior to the comparable actions of a human being, who has one special attribute, namely he or she can decide NOT to perform the designated task. Why is the freedom to refuse to help an “advantage”? If anything, I would say it is a disadvantage. It has been many pages now. Not one meaningful answer. So sad.

Since every answer which has been given so far in support of a caregiver with free will has been meaningless in your eyes, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what your criteria are for an answer to be considered meaningful. If the only criterion is that the answer agrees with your opinion, then starting this discussion was rather pointless.

 

[R_Daneel]

Since every answer which has been given so far in support of a caregiver with free will has been meaningless in your eyes, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what your criteria are for an answer to be considered meaningful. If the only criterion is that the answer agrees with your opinion, then starting this discussion was rather pointless.

Well, I had to go back and read all 6 pages. I have not found even one answer that would have said: “this … is why it is preferable that the helper could say no…”. True, about 3 pages were filled with mindless drivel from the same poster, more is the pity. But among the 3 other pages’ worth of posts, most kept of trying to poke holes into the thought experiment itself, saying that it is “impossible” to have this scenario.

There is no need to participate in this thread. If the only thing someone can say: “it is impossible…” then why say it? Who cares what he believes is possible or not?

I presented a hypothetical scenario, actually two of them, since all the respondents were concerned about meaningless techincal details. That is why I also brought up the firefighter. A simple task, get into a burning building and douse the flames with water or foam. Not a rocket scientist job, I would guess that even with today’s technology such a machine could be built. Come to think of it, the built-in fire control systems, if designed and tested properly actually do the job of a hypothetical “robot”.

So why would anyone “value” the human firefighter, who must risk his life to rescue someone from a burning building and dismiss the “programmed self-sacrifice”? (Observe the quotation marks, please, I don’t want any more idiotic nonsense about the impossibility of “self-sacrifice” for a robot.)

The only thing that matters - in my eyes - that both do the job, they both make it possible for humans to escape the fire. In other words, the end result is the same. Also in my eyes the “robotic” version is better, for several reasons. One is that the robot cannot chicken out. Two is that the robot is more reliable. Three, in the case when the robot will get burned up, we do not lose a human in the attempt. These are my criteria. You do not have to agree with them, you might have some other criteria, which you also find important - which are linked to the volitional aspect of the human firefighter. I am interested in what those criteria might be. That is all.

It is a fact that I am not able to see all the possible answers. That is why I am asking.

 

[JDaniel]

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 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.

RD:

I’m sure you have already read this Wiki article, probably, but I present it again. Two things stand out for me: agape love is (1) volitional, and (2) the most perfect love. In thinking of the union of these two, I can easily see the presumption of freedom of Will. It does not have to be spelled out.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m sure you have already read this Wiki article, probably, but I present it again. Two things stand out for me: agape love is (1) volitional, and (2) the most perfect love. In thinking of the union of these two, I can easily see the presumption of freedom of Will. It does not have to be spelled out.

It is the usual definition. And definitions are not arguments, are they? Agape is “to act on behalf of others”, or “to put other beings’ interest in front of your own”. There is nothing about it which would require “volition”. “Perfect love” is not a defined category, the poor word “love” has too many meanings.

If you would say that “agape” is only possible for God, and no one else can have it, then there is nothing to talk about. As usual, I stick to everyday concepts, which I am ready to apply to every pertinent being.

 

[Alindawyl]

Well, I had to go back and read all 6 pages. I have not found even one answer that would have said: “this … is why it is preferable that the helper could say no…”. True, about 3 pages were filled with mindless drivel from the same poster, more is the pity. But among the 3 other pages’ worth of posts, most kept of trying to poke holes into the thought experiment itself, saying that it is “impossible” to have this scenario.

If you wish to define love or agape differently from how the Catholic Church uses those terms, you are free to do so. But you are then arguing against something other than what we believe. “Hey, if you guys use this other definition for agape, then…” Sorry, but you’re going to have a difficult time making any headway with that approach.

As was said by more than one of us on the first page of this thread, a robot cannot love because a robot has no free will. Agape as defined by the Church presupposes free will. A robot may be able to mimic some or even most of the outward signs of love, but it cannot actually love. I would trust such a machine with detailed surgery or life-threatening procedures where the smallest error could cause death (as long as there’s someone watching in case it breaks), but I would not want such a machine to be my caregiver when I’m recovering after the surgery. I would trust such a machine to rescue me from a burning building (again, as long as someone’s watching in case it breaks), but I would not want such a machine to serve as my trauma counselor after that.

As ByzCath repeatedly said, you cannot dismiss the importance of the human element from caregiving. Caregiving, not mere functional acts like surgery or rescuing people from a burning building. You personally may view that as unimportant across the board, but that doesn’t make it unimportant to the rest of us.

 

[R_Daneel]

If you wish to define love or agape differently from how the Catholic Church uses those terms, you are free to do so.

I do not define it differently, I am questioning part of the definition. If you look at the Webster’s websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/agape?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=agape&sa=Search#922 or Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape you will see that the “volitional” part is not mentioned in most defintions. By the way, the word and concept of “agape” predates the Catholic Church.

As was said by more than one of us on the first page of this thread, a robot cannot love because a robot has no free will. Agape as defined by the Church presupposes free will. A robot may be able to mimic some or even most of the outward signs of love, but it cannot actually love.

And this is the question: “why is something important” if it cannot be “seen”? Or, why is the emulation inferior to the “real McCoy”, if they perform identically?

I would trust such a machine with detailed surgery or life-threatening procedures where the smallest error could cause death (as long as there’s someone watching in case it breaks), but I would not want such a machine to be my caregiver when I’m recovering after the surgery. I would trust such a machine to rescue me from a burning building (again, as long as someone’s watching in case it breaks), but I would not want such a machine to serve as my trauma counselor after that.

But you are not “playing” according to the rules. The basic stipulation is that the “machine” cannot be told apart from a human, neither by sight, nor by behavior. Neither needs “special” supervision.

If you don’t want to “play” the game, that is fine. No one forces you. There were three different kinds of “answers”, one said that the experiment is “impossible”, the other said that the machine can break down. As if a human would be immune to “breaking down”. And the third one said that they don’t “want” the assistance of a machine. None of these address the actual question.

 

[Moonstruck888]

We are referring to two different things. I am referring to a creation of God that cannot be duplicated. You are referring to a human invention which, obviously, could and still can be improved and re-created. I am referring to a creation that can only truly be improved by the supernatural grace of God. What sets humans apart from the rest of creation can only come from God. He breathed life into Adam. We could never duplicate that; we are not God. It’s apples and oranges.

Actually, there’s a hell of a lot about the “creation” of the human body that any engineer could drastically improve if God would accept some constructive criticism.

Useless prehensile hands that are designed for climing trees and cause the wrists to break in upright bipedal creatures that run.

An immune system that shows an unfortunate disposal to destroying Langerhan Islet Cells and Myelin Sheaths.

An appendix that does very little except to flare up at times killing it’s owner.

My favourite of all. A jaw bone that can’t accomodate all the 32 teeth that are meant to fit in it. What kind of omnipotent creator is incapable of taking the cross sectional area of a jaw bone and dividing by 32? Answer: God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Let me add some of my favorites. 1) our stupid toenails. 2) our diaphragm. which is “designed” for quadrupeds, but not for upright walking. 3) the lack of some wonderful abilities in animals, which would be very useful for us… for example you can cut a planaria into two halves, and they regenerate. Oh, the list is endless.

 

[Alindawyl]

I do not define it differently, I am questioning part of the definition. If you look at the Webster’s websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/agape?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=agape&sa=Search#922 or Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape you will see that the “volitional” part is not mentioned in most defintions. By the way, the word and concept of “agape” predates the Catholic Church.

When a word is used in a particular way by a specific group or culture or whatever, it’s always best to understand the meaning and intent attached to that word by that group or culture or whatever. It helps to prevent misunderstanding. Demanding that the other group “see it your way” is not going to go over very well. That’s especially true if the way in which you wish that group or culture or whatever to use the word is completely at odds with a key principle or belief held by them.

And this is the question: “why is something important” if it cannot be “seen”? Or, why is the emulation inferior to the “real McCoy”, if they perform identically?

The emulation is inferior because it does NOT perform identically. It does mechanical tasks identically but doesn’t do everything else identically. If mechanical tasks are all that matter, such as surgery or rescuing people from dangerous situations, that’s perfectly fine. If something beyond the mere mechanical is necessary, then I do not want a robot. The actions of a creature without free will cannot perfectly mimic the actions of a creature with free will. If you wish to claim that that’s possible, please demonstrate it by presenting us with a creature lacking free will which in all aspects acts indistinguishable from a human. If you cannot do so, then it’s nothing more than wishful thinking.

But you are not “playing” according to the rules. The basic stipulation is that the “machine” cannot be told apart from a human, neither by sight, nor by behavior. Neither needs “special” supervision.

If you don’t want to “play” the game, that is fine. No one forces you. There were three different kinds of “answers”, one said that the experiment is “impossible”, the other said that the machine can break down. As if a human would be immune to “breaking down”. And the third one said that they don’t “want” the assistance of a machine. None of these address the actual question.

I already played by saying that a robot is fine for performing surgery but I would prefer a human nurse as a caregiver before and after that surgery. If you want to change things from your original post by saying this imaginary robot now has free will, enabling it to not only care FOR but also care ABOUT a person, then I would have no problem with a robot nurse.

 

[Magdalena09]

So you’re really asking about free will and why it is “beneficial” that we are able to say no? Is that right? (Just clarifying before I answer.)

 

[Magdalena09]

Actually, there’s a hell of a lot about the “creation” of the human body that any engineer could drastically improve if God would accept some constructive criticism.

Useless prehensile hands that are designed for climing trees and cause the wrists to break in upright bipedal creatures that run.

An immune system that shows an unfortunate disposal to destroying Langerhan Islet Cells and Myelin Sheaths.

An appendix that does very little except to flare up at times killing it’s owner.

My favourite of all. A jaw bone that can’t accomodate all the 32 teeth that are meant to fit in it. What kind of omnipotent creator is incapable of taking the cross sectional area of a jaw bone and dividing by 32? Answer: God.

Let me add some of my favorites. 1) our stupid toenails. 2) our diaphragm. which is “designed” for quadrupeds, but not for upright walking. 3) the lack of some wonderful abilities in animals, which would be very useful for us… for example you can cut a planaria into two halves, and they regenerate. Oh, the list is endless.

This is elementary.

The deterioration of each individual human (eventual death) is the result of sin. On a broad scale, all problems in our world (sickness/disease/natural disasters) are the natural consequence of The Fall. There have been articles and books written on this for years and years now. To say we are imperfect or that our world is imperfect because God couldn’t do it better (or to point to that as evidence that God doesn’t exist) is one of the easiest arguments to defeat.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The deterioration of each individual human (eventual death) is the result of sin.

Prove it. How do you know?

Even if you’re correct, how does deterioration explain why we have adaptations that we don’t need? Deterioration does not explain vestigial traits in any way shape or form.

On a broad scale, all problems in our world (sickness/disease/natural disasters) are the natural consequence of The Fall.

Prove it.

There have been articles and books written on this for years and years now.

There have been articles and books written about Elves and Goblins in Middle Earth for years too. I don’t believe these fictions either.

To say we are imperfect or that our world is imperfect because God couldn’t do it better (or to point to that as evidence that God doesn’t exist) is one of the easiest arguments to defeat.

And to say that he could do better, and to use the modern vernacular just couldn’t be arsed, shows that he isn’t much of a God.

He set up Adam and Eve knowing they would eat the apples before he even created them. Why did he put the apples there? Why did he create Adam and Eve predisposed to eat the apples? Why shouldn’t they have ate the apples?

The Creation myth according to Genesis. A fixed horse race.

 

[R_Daneel]

So you’re really asking about free will and why it is “beneficial” that we are able to say no? Is that right? (Just clarifying before I answer.)

You got it perfectly right. Yes, this is my question.

 

[R_Daneel]

When a word is used in a particular way by a specific group or culture or whatever, it’s always best to understand the meaning and intent attached to that word by that group or culture or whatever. It helps to prevent misunderstanding. Demanding that the other group “see it your way” is not going to go over very well. That’s especially true if the way in which you wish that group or culture or whatever to use the word is completely at odds with a key principle or belief held by them.

Well, that is their problem. If any group wishes to use (for example) the word “love” to designate “kick the living daylight out of someone” and the proceeds to say that Mr. Jones “loves” his child, since he “kicked the living daylight out of him”, then this person delivered a perfectly logical argument. According to his definition Mr. Jones “does” love his child. The argument is logical, but not sound.

The emulation is inferior because it does NOT perform identically. It does mechanical tasks identically but doesn’t do everything else identically. If mechanical tasks are all that matter, such as surgery or rescuing people from dangerous situations, that’s perfectly fine. If something beyond the mere mechanical is necessary, then I do not want a robot. The actions of a creature without free will cannot perfectly mimic the actions of a creature with free will. If you wish to claim that that’s possible, please demonstrate it by presenting us with a creature lacking free will which in all aspects acts indistinguishable from a human. If you cannot do so, then it’s nothing more than wishful thinking.

This is a thought experiment, nothing more. As I said, the behavior the robot cannot be told apart from the behavior of the human. The internal “working” is not detectable, but the external working is identical.

I already played by saying that a robot is fine for performing surgery but I would prefer a human nurse as a caregiver before and after that surgery. If you want to change things from your original post by saying this imaginary robot now has free will, enabling it to not only care FOR but also care ABOUT a person, then I would have no problem with a robot nurse.

Nope I don’t want to change it. Obviously the robot has a considerable freedom to choose, but has no ability to say “no, I will not care for that patient”.

 

[BTW]

The fundamental belief of Christianity is that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, deliberately took human form, suffered, and died to help human beings to choose what is right and reject what is wrong. If you believe, as I do, that Jesus was both God and man, then that means that God underwent suffering for us by choice, since as God he didn’t have to do any such thing. In other words, He acted for our benefit at a real cost to Himself. To me that is perfect love, and the older I get, and the more I see of the world, the more astounding I find it.
I think the robot nurse thought experiment is problematical because it excludes any possibility that the recipient of the nurse’s help can know why the nurse does what she does; I have had a personal experience in which physicians and nurses acted well beyond the call of duty, and many years later it still comforts me.

 

[R_Daneel]

I think the robot nurse thought experiment is problematical because it excludes any possibility that the recipient of the nurse’s help can know why the nurse does what she does; I have had a personal experience in which physicians and nurses acted well beyond the call of duty, and many years later it still comforts me.

You just told us that you could not see why the human doctors and nurses did what they did for you. Why do you consider the same ignorance problematic for the robotic nurse?

Looks like I need to repeat this every time: the only difference between the human and robotic nurse is that the human can say “no”, while the robot cannot. The human has the freedom not to render help, when help is necessary, the robot cannot. There is no other difference. That is the thought experiment is all about. What does the human ability to say “no” add to the situation?

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is now closed.

God bless-

Rachel