What is the point?

[Vera_Ljuba]

If He doesn’t exist, then people who believe in Him and act according to what they believe He wants are pitiful dupes.

Why use such insulting and degrading words? I would simply say that they are mistaken. Most people simply don’t take time and energy to question their core beliefs, which were taught during their formative years. Those beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they are usually “unquestionable”. And if those beliefs also offer a warm and fuzzy security blanket (eternal bliss) and if the violation of those beliefs leads to eternal suffering, then there is absolutely no incentive to question them.

If He doesn’t exist, then we’re all just random specks in the cosmos, if we’re lucky some part of our ‘life energy’ which won’t be sentient will ‘exist’ in some kind of dust out in a gradually shrinking in universe until it implodes on itself, kaboom, that’s all folks.

Yes, and that makes our existence so precious.

The only thing we ‘get’ out of life is what we can grab. Success is getting the most material pleasure out of the few years we have in a body, with the least amount of pain, and is to be pursued at all costs. Any kind of thoughts we have, being likewise based on chaos, are full of delusion, illogic, and stupidity. Any so-called ‘great thoughts’ are also based on a kind of mass delusion, fed into simply by how ‘comfortable’ we personally happen to be, or for whatever we personally feel strokes our ego best.

That is simplistic and incorrect. But I am not interested in correcting it.

If God does exist though, then there is a ‘point’ to existence.

No, if God exists that does not lend value to THIS existence, it only lends value to our DEATH.

The problem comes with our human hubris; our insistence both that God needs to come down to ‘our level’ (not, heaven apparently forbid, that we try as best we can to rise up closer to ‘His’!), and that He needs to give humanity the Idiots Guide to understanding God perfectly–and He us–because anything short of that means A He ain’t God and B He isn’t treating us fairly so it’s His fault we don’t have that guide and not our fault for running around kvetching and moaning that He doesn’t ‘talk to us’, that He isn’t perfectly clear, that He doesn’t make us perfect so we don’t have to try and fail at being good, etc. etc. etc.

If God wishes to be worshipped - as innumerable apologists assert - then it is absolutely necessary to make sure that he exists, AND deserves to be worshipped.

You say that God is so far above us that we have no chance of understanding his “ways”. But the believers always say that we can understand God sufficiently enough to realize that he deserves to be worshipped, but we are unable to understand him to criticize him. And that is a logical error.

 

[inocente]

Generic dictionaries are not useful for specific fields.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article defines morality as either:

• descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
• normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The OED definition is:

• Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Below, you say “I like to dig into the essentials”. The OED seems to capture the essentials just fine.

They all refer to the same principle. To create new neural connections. Obviously the methods are different, but the concept is the same. I like to dig into the essentials and I also like to poke the hornet’s nest by using correct, but not “politically correct” phrases.

Brainwashing has nothing in common with teaching.

***Within some limits? Or anything, whatever they please? *** Because as soon as you wish to limit their actions, it becomes “programming”. I suspect that you know what I mean, but want to pretend that you don’t know… for your own inscrutable purposes. Or maybe you just don’t want to agree with a “despicable heathen”? As far is interpersonal activities go, I am sure there is no difference between our ethical systems. And I have no problem with that.

Strangely, I get the impression our ethics are worlds apart. Set no limits on kids other than to help them, and protect them and others from harm. Children are persons. As the UDHR says, they are born with rights, including the right to be educated:

*Art. 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Art. 26: (1) Everyone has the right to education.*

*That is very shallow thinking - if you are serious (which I hope you are not). The usual “all or nothing”, or “black and white” approach. Get out into the complex world, where there are colors. *

I don’t want to live in your robot world with its fixed mortality. I want rebels, because rebels challenge the status quo, and that’s good and healthy whether or not we agree with them.

Ah, eventually the point came up. You just washed away the difference between emotional love and desirable behavior in general. Let me know what kind of epistemological method would you use to find out the difference between “real” love and perfectly “simulated” love. Because that is the crucial question. If you can’t tell the difference, then it is irrational to say that there IS difference.

Come now, you can surely see the difference between someone who chooses to love you and a robot programmed to behave as if it loves you.

*For some people it might be the only possible option. The ones who are so unfortunate that no “real” person could find them attractive enough to engage in an “eros” type of love with them. I don’t know if you ever read Asimov’s “I Robot” collection. If you have not, I suggest you read it. He examined many different “human - robot” interactions. *

Yes, I read them awhile back. They were rather dated. Your original question was whether I would prefer a robot or human nurse. Most of us don’t believe we’re unlovable, and shouldn’t organize society to encourage people to believe they’re unlovable. They should be able to get help to show them they are lovable.

For instance, a church with community.
Or rebels to give them a voice: youtube.com/watch?v=ldWSMhu4CA4 :bowdown2:

I wonder, if you intended this as an insult? Your assessment of me is as incorrect as your assessment of my points happened to be. Your only excuse is the smiley.

Can’t see why you’d think it was an insult. You say above you “like to poke the hornet’s nest by using correct, but not “politically correct” phrases”. You’re arguing for the programming of children and replacing nurses with robots. It might poke yon hornets nest to say that’s not exactly moderate liberalism, but it isn’t, is it?

 

[reggieM]

And if those beliefs also offer a warm and fuzzy security blanket (eternal bliss) and if the violation of those beliefs leads to eternal suffering, then there is absolutely no incentive to question them.

Keep in mind, for the believer who prays - he or she is communicating with God, in real time. So, it’s not just a value at death, but during life - God answers, guides, supports, heals and changes a person. Jesus said he will reward those who have faith in Him, not only in the next life, but a hundred-fold in this life. God helps us make moral improvements - because God can reveal to us our hidden sins and flaws. Plus, most importantly, God gives us the grace and strength to make the improvements that we can’t make on our own! The sacraments - are gifts of power.
As St. Paul says - the Christian life is not about knowing things, it is about power. That is, the divine power of God coming into our soul.

No, if God exists that does not lend value to THIS existence, it only lends value to our DEATH.

As above - it is in this life. Our sins are forgiven, we have the strength to atone, God grants us wisdom from His presence and He actually communicates with us. This is tremendous value in THIS existence.
So, when God is offered to the atheist - it’s a blessing and benefit to the person. Why wouldn’t someone want that kind of relationship in their life?

If God wishes to be worshipped - as innumerable apologists assert - then it is absolutely necessary to make sure that he exists, AND deserves to be worshipped.

God is the perfection of being. The ultimate good. Anything that is worthy of being loved is found in Him. He is the origin of all good - He is the definition of worthiness.

You say that God is so far above us that we have no chance of understanding his “ways”. But the believers always say that we can understand God sufficiently enough to realize that he deserves to be worshipped, but we are unable to understand him to criticize him. And that is a logical error.

We can understand perfection without possessing perfection. We can understand perfect justice, while admitting that we do not possess it. We can admit that our judgement is flawed at the same time, recognizing that there is One who has perfect judgement. We can accept that our knowledge is limited and therefore our criticism is unjust - while at the same time conceptualizing God who has perfect knowledge and wisdom.
That’s not illogical.

We observe things that are flawed and imperfect. From that we can extrapolate to that which is perfect - that which does not have flaws. But we do not actually possess the perfect knowledge of that Being while we live - only the general concept and belief in it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Most people simply don’t take time and energy to question their core beliefs, which were taught during their formative years.

I don’t think that’s true. I find that many folks begin such a self-critical period somewhere between 15 and 25 as almost a matter of expected course.

Yes, and that makes our existence so precious.

No more precious than the existence of literally every other thing that occurs by chance. When everything is precious, then nothing is precious.

To court atheism is to struggle with nihilism, as we learned as a species in the 19th century.

No, if God exists that does not lend value to THIS existence, it only lends value to our DEATH.

Whut?
For most theists, how they experience eternity is determined by how they lived. The two cannot be separated.

If God wishes to be worshipped - as innumerable apologists assert - then it is absolutely necessary to make sure that he exists, AND deserves to be worshipped.

You can’t consider God’s desires until you’ve come to some belief. As such, whether God wants to be worshiped is irrelevant to you if you’ve no belief. Why even ask questions about it?
Concerning whether he deserves it, your opinion is no better than the readers. I’m not sure why you levy it as a valid objection as it’s so infinitely subjective.

You say that God is so far above us that we have no chance of understanding his “ways”. But the believers always say that we can understand God sufficiently enough to realize that he deserves to be worshipped, but we are unable to understand him to criticize him. And that is a logical error.

How so?
You assume here that there is some higher standard that God must be subject to in order to determine if He is worthy of worship. If that were so, I’d worship that standard rather than God, as it would be demonstrated as superior.

We see this, I think, in your worship of your own self-determined standard by which you judge your selective perception of God. And then you deign to call that an act of hard-logic.
:hypno:

 

[reggieM]

We see this, I think, in your worship of your own self-determined standard by which you judge your selective perception of God. And then you deign to call that an act of hard-logic.
:hypno:

Just jumping in here to highlight –
Yes, if Vera’s opinion is the highest possible moral standard, which he uses to negatively judge against God – then he has a God-like standard and powers of judgement. He would, logically, worship himself as a being greater than God, with more moral justice than God has.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Most people simply don’t take time and energy to question their core beliefs, which were taught during their formative years. Those beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they are usually “unquestionable”. . .

This does not seem to apply to the vast majority of people with whom I have come into contact. There is an enormous variety in political, religious, economic, scientific, artistic and pretty much every sort of thought available to those who look. And, questioning is a key aspect of the changes that occur at adolescence, that include hormone changes, resulting in the development of sexual characteristics, growth in height, weight, and muscle mass, and related to significant changes in brain structure and processes. The latter are associated with emotional, social and cognitive growth. We know more and are better able to reason and to think abstractly. And, abstract is a term that seems to apply to modern societies, in which it can be quite a challenge for many to fit.

. . . if God exists that does not lend value to THIS existence, it only lends value to our DEATH. . .

This life is the means by which we become who we are in eternity.
There can be no greater value, clearly nothing that is of a mere four-score years in duration only to slip into oblivion.
This moment and what we do in it matters as the intersection of time and eternity.

. . . If God wishes to be worshipped - as innumerable apologists assert - then it is absolutely necessary to make sure that he exists, AND deserves to be worshipped. . .

How can one not worship love, knowing what and who it is?
I think it is all very clear to everyone. We do so easily fall into sin.

. . . believers always say that we can understand God sufficiently enough to realize that he deserves to be worshipped, but we are unable to understand him to criticize him. And that is a logical error.

Why would anyone whose primary interest is themselves, want to consider the needs of others as equal to their own, glorifying the beauty and goodness of this eternal truth?
It’s a choice.

What is important to remember is that where we see an unjust God, a world grounded in evil or indifference, when our thinking imagines such things as being the whole story, the problem is not with God, but rather with our understanding. He patiently guides us to the truth, should that be our choice.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Brainwashing has nothing in common with teaching.

Why don’t you think outside the box? Both deal with acquiring new information. When the teacher gives new information, that new information erases the old, incorrect one, and allows the new one to be internalized. Forget about the emotional overtones, and concentrate on the fundamentals; what actually happens.

Strangely, I get the impression our ethics are worlds apart. Set no limits on kids other than to help them, and protect them and others from harm.

There we go. So you do NOT wish to grant them unlimited freedom, just like I would not. You profess the importance of disallowing harm, just like I do. So where is the difference? I am a staunch libertarian - classic liberal - who contends that violence is only allowed in (self)-protection. Maybe you disagree with that? (Don’t spare the rod, as the Bible teaches?)

I don’t want to live in your robot world with its fixed mortality. I want rebels, because rebels challenge the status quo, and that’s good and healthy whether or not we agree with them.

Absolutely. But allowing “rebellion” is subject to limitations. Does your concept of rebellion include the use of “guillotines”? I doubt it. The part of morality which is “fixed” is limited to preventing harm to others. What is wrong with that?

Come now, you can surely see the difference between someone who chooses to love you and a robot programmed to behave as if it loves you.

The question is: “How can you tell the difference”? (And don’t call me “Surely”. Quotation from the movie “Airplane” by Leslie Nielsen) The basic question is: “Since all we have access to is the person’s behavior, how can we find out if that behavior is pre-programmed, or not”? I am only aware of the method from Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”. When you watch a theater performance of an exceptionally good actor, you are still aware of the artificial environment and you don’t believe that the actor is really sad, even though he exhibits all the external signs of being distressed. But what would happen in a neutral environment? How could you find out if the actor is really sad, or is just giving a good imitation of being sad?

At what point does the “imitation” become reality? Think about it. It is not a trivial problem.

Can’t see why you’d think it was an insult. You say above you “like to poke the hornet’s nest by using correct, but not “politically correct” phrases”. You’re arguing for the programming of children and replacing nurses with robots. It might poke yon hornets nest to say that’s not exactly moderate liberalism, but it isn’t, is it?

But it is; it is moderate (“classic”) liberalism. Of course, if you don’t realize that teaching is a kind of programming, you will never understand what I say. Also, if you don’t understand that rape is fundamentally different from blowing your nose on the royal carpet during a reception - and call both of them “immoral”, then there is no chance of finding a common ground. Which is pretty sad.

 

[inocente]

Why don’t you think outside the box? Both deal with acquiring new information. When the teacher gives new information, that new information erases the old, incorrect one, and allows the new one to be internalized. Forget about the emotional overtones, and concentrate on the fundamentals; what actually happens.

I’m not thinking about emotional overtones, I’m thinking that describing brainwashing as ‘acquiring new information’ is from the same handbook as ‘maximally demoting’ (= killing) and ‘target-rich environment’ (= a densely populated town).

btw your theory about information being erased isn’t scientific, we don’t have RAM between our ears.

*There we go. So you do NOT wish to grant them unlimited freedom, just like I would not. You profess the importance of disallowing harm, just like I do. So where is the difference? I am a staunch libertarian - classic liberal - who contends that violence is only allowed in (self)-protection. Maybe you disagree with that? (Don’t spare the rod, as the Bible teaches?) *

Staunch libertarians programming kids? Not on my watch.

As the UDHR says, kids are born free, you can’t grant freedom you can only take it away. As for you disallowing harm, your health and safety gurus should visit Spain where they’ll see mothers chatting happily while their kids climb trees and cliffs. Sure they may fall, but they’re having fun and it’s a learning opportunity.

Absolutely. But allowing “rebellion” is subject to limitations. Does your concept of rebellion include the use of “guillotines”? I doubt it. The part of morality which is “fixed” is limited to preventing harm to others. What is wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that is I have to get a signed release before I can bruise your arm to save 100 lives.

The question is: “How can you tell the difference”? (And don’t call me “Surely”. Quotation from the movie “Airplane” by Leslie Nielsen) The basic question is: “Since all we have access to is the person’s behavior, how can we find out if that behavior is pre-programmed, or not”? I am only aware of the method from Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”. When you watch a theater performance of an exceptionally good actor, you are still aware of the artificial environment and you don’t believe that the actor is really sad, even though he exhibits all the external signs of being distressed. But what would happen in a neutral environment? How could you find out if the actor is really sad, or is just giving a good imitation of being sad?

At what point does the “imitation” become reality? Think about it. It is not a trivial problem.

Come now Shirley you know the difference. Someone loving you means you’re lovable and they fell in love with you. But you will always know that a robot, no matter how authentic the performance, is just a programmed machine.

I mean, if you could build something in silicon which has (not merely emulates) all the same emotions and thinking as a human, and it falls in love with you then fine, but that’s far beyond what is meant by a robot, Shirley that’s now a person.

But it is; it is moderate (“classic”) liberalism. Of course, if you don’t realize that teaching is a kind of programming, you will never understand what I say. Also, if you don’t understand that rape is fundamentally different from blowing your nose on the royal carpet during a reception - and call both of them “immoral”, then there is no chance of finding a common ground. Which is pretty sad.

First thing I was taught in science class was think for myself. Whatever we did elsewhere, in that classroom teacher expected us to question everything, examine everything, decide for ourselves. Whereas programming is indoctrination, it requires everything to be accepted unquestioningly.

If a society believes that wiping one’s nose on the royal carpet is immoral, isn’t that up to them? I mean if a rebel questions it, and the society changes, fine. But the notion that we can dictate that wiping one’s nose on royal carpets is always absolutely moral, for all societies in all times, no matter what they want, doesn’t seem overly, what’s the word, liberal.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

btw your theory about information being erased isn’t scientific, we don’t have RAM between our ears.

Our memories do change with every piece of new information.

As the UDHR says, kids are born free, you can’t grant freedom you can only take it away. As for you disallowing harm, your health and safety gurus should visit Spain where they’ll see mothers chatting happily while their kids climb trees and cliffs. Sure they may fall, but they’re having fun and it’s a learning opportunity.

I am sure they are allowed to climb monkey-bars, and I am sure that the mothers are there to catch them if they fall. Are they allowed to play with loaded guns, too? I doubt it. Don’t play stupid, it does not suit you. There are enough genuine nincompoops around here, no need for you to “emulate” them.

Someone loving you means you’re lovable and they fell in love with you. But you will always know that a robot, no matter how authentic the performance, is just a programmed machine.

The question is HOW would you know it? Because I don’t have any extra information, except the behavior of that “someone”. This is just another variant of the Turing test. The other party is indistinguishable from a “real” human. Just like you cannot tell the difference between a “really” sad actor, and an “emulated” performance.

I mean, if you could build something in silicon which has (not merely emulates) all the same emotions and thinking as a human, and it falls in love with you then fine, but that’s far beyond what is meant by a robot, Shirley that’s now a person.

Sure it is a person. Who said that a “robot” cannot be a person? If you happened to read the “Caves of Steel”, it is obvious that R. Daneel Olivaw is a person. The whole point is that no one can find out if a behavior is “genuine” or “emulated”.

First thing I was taught in science class was think for myself. Whatever we did elsewhere, in that classroom teacher expected us to question everything, examine everything, decide for ourselves. Whereas programming is indoctrination, it requires everything to be accepted unquestioningly.

That is extremely naïve.

If a society believes that wiping one’s nose on the royal carpet is immoral, isn’t that up to them? I mean if a rebel questions it, and the society changes, fine. But the notion that we can dictate that wiping one’s nose on royal carpets is always absolutely moral, for all societies in all times, no matter what they want, doesn’t seem overly, what’s the word, liberal.

You said that it is “immoral” (according to the quoted dictionary definition). People don’t consider it “immoral”, they consider it boorish, or ill-behaved, indecorous, unmannered, etc… Don’t act as if you did not know the difference.

 

[inocente]

Our memories do change with every piece of new information.

Stuff doesn’t get erased though. Very different architecture to computers.

*I am sure they are allowed to climb monkey-bars, and I am sure that the mothers are there to catch them if they fall. Are they allowed to play with loaded guns, too? I doubt it. Don’t play stupid, it does not suit you. There are enough genuine nincompoops around here, no need for you to “emulate” them. *

No, moms don’t stand around waiting to catch them. Different culture. They’re hard to catch when they get above 4 meters high anyway. Compare with America, the only place I know where every mom can buy a handgun. And what about those Russian dashcams, road-rage parents while baby is in the back seat. Different cultures.

*The question is HOW would you know it? Because I don’t have any extra information, except the behavior of that “someone”. This is just another variant of the Turing test. The other party is indistinguishable from a “real” human. Just like you cannot tell the difference between a “really” sad actor, and an “emulated” performance. *

In the Turing test interaction is several limited (originally a teletype). And I think you’re changing the scenario, I seem to remember it started out with people who think they’re unlovable, buying a robot companion. But even if you didn’t know, your eyes first meet across a crowded room, I think the first kiss against cold titanium might be a bit of a giveaway. Not to mention the Intel Inside label on its forehead.

Sure it is a person. Who said that a “robot” cannot be a person? If you happened to read the “Caves of Steel”, it is obvious that R. Daneel Olivaw is a person. The whole point is that no one can find out if a behavior is “genuine” or “emulated”.

I meant that if a robot walks like a person and talks like a person, then what we have here is a person, in which case continuing to say robot sounds racist to me.

*That is extremely naïve. *

I take it you’re a fan of the 1970’s pop combo dirge band Pink Floyd but think ‘Another brick in the wall’ was meant as a critique of the writer’s school, not of the entire teaching profession.

You said that it is “immoral” (according to the quoted dictionary definition). People don’t consider it “immoral”, they consider it boorish, or ill-behaved, indecorous, unmannered, etc… Don’t act as if you did not know the difference.

I don’t agree with your moral absolutism. For me, if a society decides that defacing the royal carpet is immoral, that’s for them and nobody else.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Stuff doesn’t get erased though. Very different architecture to computers.

Wetware, instead of hardware. But the information STILL gets lost or overwritten, or “sinks” into the subconscious. I wish my memory would be good as it was a few years ago.

No, moms don’t stand around waiting to catch them.

So do the moms also allow them to play with loaded handguns? The point is that allowing limited freedom is the way to go - but not unlimited one. As long as the children can learn from their mistakes, it is fine to allow them to suffer minor injuries.

I meant that if a robot walks like a person and talks like a person, then what we have here is a person, in which case continuing to say robot sounds racist to me.

Apart from the label “racist”, that is precisely my sentiment. The good old duck principle. Even if he/she/it is grown in a vat, or constructed on a production line (and covered with genuine-imitation naugahyde - indistinguishable from human skin) we have a person. But I still don’t know if the other person is genuinely kind and loving, or “just” programmed to be. To call it a robot is simply precise, it is not degrading. I would always choose a robot companion as a friend - just like Eliah Bailey felt a genuine friendship toward R. Daneel Olivaw.

I take it you’re a fan of the 1970’s pop combo dirge band Pink Floyd but think ‘Another brick in the wall’ was meant as a critique of the writer’s school, not of the entire teaching profession.

I did not criticize the teaching profession. I criticize your concept that “programming” means unquestioning acceptance. You can certainly program in a “free will lookalike”, but then you have the same problem. Is the emulated free will different from the real McCoy? And don’t forget that there is self-modification of the program. Remember, this line of the conversation started from the question of finding out the difference between a programmed behavior and a “genuine” one.

I don’t agree with your moral absolutism. For me, if a society decides that defacing the royal carpet is immoral, that’s for them and nobody else.

It does not matter. In every society there is a hierarchy of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” behaviors. And not all “unacceptable” behaviors are considered “immoral”. There is a smart guy around here, who said that “taking the last slice of pizza” can be forgiven (even if there is no repentance) but “raping a killing a few dozens of women” is a different matter - even if it is repented (what was his name? ). Of course I am NOT a moral absolutist, I assert that there are no “intrinsically evil” behaviors, ALL the circumstances must be considered before we affix the “immoral” label to an act.

 

[Clevus]

Then we would be left with man has the gauge of what defines these things.

kind = kind if it gains us something
loving = becomes loving only those who love us
honest = so far as it does not affect our planned direction or reflect on us
polite = what’s in it for me?
good nature = false sense of well being. Taken in by what nature affords us
in our temporal lives.

I think we need instruction from the source of the great plan that we are a part of, otherwise this whole world would be full of false codes, and there are many who wait for that opportunity to create diversity in even that.

 

[reggieM]

Then we would be left with man has the gauge of what defines these things.

kind = kind if it gains us something
loving = becomes loving only those who love us
honest = so far as it does not affect our planned direction or reflect on us
polite = what’s in it for me?
good nature = false sense of well being. Taken in by what nature affords us
in our temporal lives.

I think we need instruction from the source of the great plan that we are a part of, otherwise this whole world would be full of false codes, and there are many who wait for that opportunity to create diversity in even that.

Maybe not directly related, but there’s a virtue that is easily missed also:

“Fear of the Lord”, or “Fear of God”.

When it is said of a man, “he has no fear of God” - that says something (people don’t speak like that much anymore, but it was common at one time).

Fear of God, even in a secular or atheist sense would be something like “reverence for what is greater than himself”.

 

[inocente]

Wetware, instead of hardware. But the information STILL gets lost or overwritten, or “sinks” into the subconscious. I wish my memory would be good as it was a few years ago.

If you look at the neuroscience, it’s which routes are or are not reinforced through use.

So do the moms also allow them to play with loaded handguns? The point is that allowing limited freedom is the way to go - but not unlimited one. As long as the children can learn from their mistakes, it is fine to allow them to suffer minor injuries.

As I said, ownership of handguns is heavily restricted in most of the world outside the US.

*Apart from the label “racist”, that is precisely my sentiment. The good old duck principle. Even if he/she/it is grown in a vat, or constructed on a production line (and covered with genuine-imitation naugahyde - indistinguishable from human skin) we have a person. But I still don’t know if the other person is genuinely kind and loving, or “just” programmed to be. To call it a robot is simply precise, it is not degrading. I would always choose a robot companion as a friend - just like Eliah Bailey felt a genuine friendship toward R. Daneel Olivaw. *

We’re more or less on the same page, but robot is defined as a machine, and I think only human-supremacists would call them robots to their face. The rest of us wouldn’t, any more than we notice color of skin or sexuality.

*I did not criticize the teaching profession. I criticize your concept that “programming” means unquestioning acceptance. You can certainly program in a “free will lookalike”, but then you have the same problem. Is the emulated free will different from the real McCoy? And don’t forget that there is self-modification of the program. Remember, this line of the conversation started from the question of finding out the difference between a programmed behavior and a “genuine” one. *

I think it’s easy to differentiate. Programming produces a programmed response for a given stimulus. If a person is programmed to think murder is wrong, she will automatically think it is without knowing why. Ask her and she’ll just say it’s wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong. The programming never gave her a reason.

It does not matter. In every society there is a hierarchy of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” behaviors. And not all “unacceptable” behaviors are considered “immoral”. There is a smart guy around here, who said that “taking the last slice of pizza” can be forgiven (even if there is no repentance) but “raping a killing a few dozens of women” is a different matter - even if it is repented (what was his name? ). Of course I am NOT a moral absolutist, I assert that there are no “intrinsically evil” behaviors, ALL the circumstances must be considered before we affix the “immoral” label to an act.

If you’re not a moral absolutist then you have to accept that if, in a culture, defacing the royal carpet is immoral, that’s for them and not you to decide.

To them it may be as bad as climbing onto a Tomb of the Unknown Solider wearing bunny ears and blowing a kazoo. It shows disrespect. That’s not merely impolite, that’s immoral. If you disagree, ask the honor guards.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As I said, ownership of handguns is heavily restricted in most of the world outside the US.

Sure. So change it to a sharp knife. Or a blowtorch. The point is still the same, you do not allow children to play with those objects which can cause harm to themselves or others.

We’re more or less on the same page, but robot is defined as a machine, and I think only human-supremacists would call them robots to their face. The rest of us wouldn’t, any more than we notice color of skin or sexuality.

I agree, but let’s not forget that WE are also “machines” to a very high degree. Only a very small part of us is governed by a conscious process.

I think it’s easy to differentiate. Programming produces a programmed response for a given stimulus.

Not necessarily just ONE response. But I want to get back to the scenario of a good actor. He acts as if he were sad. You cannot determine if he is REALLY sad, or just pretends to be sad.

If you’re not a moral absolutist then you have to accept that if, in a culture, defacing the royal carpet is immoral, that’s for them and not you to decide.

Of course it is “up to them”. But I don’t think that you will ever have a case when the whole society has a “one size fits all” type of approach. And call every socially unacceptable behavior by the same name.

To them it may be as bad as climbing onto a Tomb of the Unknown Solider wearing bunny ears and blowing a kazoo. It shows disrespect. That’s not merely impolite, that’s immoral. If you disagree, ask the honor guards.

Why don’t you ask others, too? And why would disrespect be automatically called “immoral”? When communism fell at the beginning of the 90’s, many flags were “defaced”, by cutting out the communist symbols from them. Was that act “immoral”?

 

[inocente]

Sure. So change it to a sharp knife. Or a blowtorch. The point is still the same, you do not allow children to play with those objects which can cause harm to themselves or others.

I’m pretty sure the point was you said you want to program kids because of “the importance of disallowing harm” and I said nope to programming and putting kids into health & safety bubbles.

*I agree, but let’s not forget that WE are also “machines” to a very high degree. Only a very small part of us is governed by a conscious process. *

I’m told that orthopedic surgeons regard patients as machines to fix.

*Not necessarily just ONE response. But I want to get back to the scenario of a good actor. He acts as if he were sad. You cannot determine if he is REALLY sad, or just pretends to be sad. *

I think method actors look for something from their past which really does make them sad.

*Of course it is “up to them”. But I don’t think that you will ever have a case when the whole society has a “one size fits all” type of approach. And call every socially unacceptable behavior by the same name.

Why don’t you ask others, too? And why would disrespect be automatically called “immoral”? When communism fell at the beginning of the 90’s, many flags were “defaced”, by cutting out the communist symbols from them. Was that act “immoral”?*

Exactly, different strokes for different cultures. And sure, there probably are those who don’t respect a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and don’t respect that it represents sacrifices, but most of us do.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’m pretty sure the point was you said you want to program kids because of “the importance of disallowing harm” and I said nope to programming and putting kids into health & safety bubbles.

We all teach (program) our kids, and we all try to protect them from unnecessary harm. We try to MAKE them as good and kind as possible and try to WEED out the unwanted behavior as we can. If we could do a better job, we would. (Most of us.) We do not allow them to play with sharp knives. Is there anything here that you disagree with?

Maybe you don’t like the word “program”. There are many self-modifying, learning algorithms, which are pretty much identical to how we, humans learn. One of the chess programs, which is better than the world champion was initiated as a simple, self-teaching algorithm.

We already talked about the “robot” vs. “person” dichotomy, and agreed that the building blocks do not matter. If it looks like a human, acts like a human, then it is a person. Nothing wrong with pointing out that it is an artificial “human”. The same is true here. Teaching and programming are interchangeable words. Usually we say “teaching” vis-s-vis humans, and we say “programming” when it comes to “machines”. Read the next paragraph below.

I’m told that orthopedic surgeons regard patients as machines to fix.

We are biological machines, with a certain amount of freedom to act in certain circumstances. There is nothing degrading about accepting reality. How much control do we have over our cardio-vascular system? Or the digestive tract? Or the endocrine system? Almost none, and luckily so. The amount of information processing which would be required to put these systems under volitional control would be much more than the “grey cells” could cope with. Our conscious part of the brain can only process about 2000 bits per second, while the whole processing capacity is about 400 billion bits per second. Let’s just say: “thank God that we are basically machines”.

I think method actors look for something from their past which really does make them sad.

Maybe, maybe not. But you still cannot find out if their exhibited sadness is “real” or “fake”. The basic problem is: “how do we differentiate between the original and the imitation”?

Using a 3-D copy machine, how can you tell which is the original and which is the copy, if the copy process happens on the atomic level?

Exactly, different strokes for different cultures. And sure, there probably are those who don’t respect a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and don’t respect that it represents sacrifices, but most of us do.

I am astonished that you reject the fact that not all socially undesirable actions are call “immoral”. Why is that?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

If there is something I would NOT want, is to be “like” God. Someone, who does NOT help the ones in need, who does NOT heal the sick, who does NOT feed the hungry, who does NOT protect the weak and downtrodden. Someone who is vainglorious, jealous, mean and selfish, someone who sends you into eternal suffering for some minuscule lack of “worship”. Someone who demands you to debase yourself, for whom the worst “sin” is “pride”.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Some people do indeed believe in that god, but not me, and possibly not every believer at CAF, and possibly not every Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or protestant.

I agree emphatically with you, no thanks!!!

Your OP makes the case for a moral agent which is a totally different issue than the existence of God (who according to my Scriptures is in a far country anyway).

I agree most deeply on the essential role of information to form our moral senses.

The average opinion expressed on forums like this isn’t frightfully good at tracing whatever connection there might be between God and morals. Just because I think I understand what people are writing, doesn’t mean they should assume every reader will know. I think it is right that questions be asked when coach and horses need to be driven through something - or appear to need to be.

Look at conceptions of worship (which Vera mentioned). To some, it’s about amplifiers and hysterics. But my paraphrase of my Old and New Testaments is “don’t stunt the growth of the fellow adopted widows and orphans in the Father’s profitable family firm”. Pretended insiders in the churches should study the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000 and the parable of the talents.

Everybody, please stop trotting out superficial arguments. If you don’t like rumbustious - any of you - it was silly to get off the bus at planet Earth. We don’t know how soon there’s going to be another one. I also, am deeply hurt and scared by the oppression in the world. I might not be the only one scared and hurt besides Vera (but I’m not certain).

Digressing about robots has got nothing to do with EITHER morals OR the existence of God.

Vera, what is the thread about? I think that in you are some excellent questions struggling to get out. Please help create and structure space to do them justice systematically. Big questions don’t have short answers. In a lot of your opening gambits, you get off to a good start. Help us help you by enquiring, from time to time, what our answers have got to do with your main question, so as to help us try and fill in the subjects better - in case we can.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Vera, what is the thread about? I think that in you are some excellent questions struggling to get out. Please help create and structure space to do them justice systematically. Big questions don’t have short answers. In a lot of your opening gambits, you get off to a good start. Help us help you by enquiring, from time to time, what our answers have got to do with your main question, so as to help us try and fill in the subjects better - in case we can.

Ok. let’s talk about the OP. My theorem is this:

1. Kind, loving, caring behavior toward others is something we value. (There are the psychopaths who disagree.)
2. Therefore we try to teach our children to have those traits.
3. If we are successful to the degree when they are automatically kind, loving, etc. then we succeeded.
4. If someone needs time to decide: “should I stick this knife into my annoying neighbor?” and decides: “no”, it is inferior to the case when the violence does not even cross his mind.
5. But SOME people - for some unfathomable reason - prefer the volitional avoidance of violence to the instinctive, automatic choice of non-violence.
6. The volitional avoidance of violence may not work, in extreme circumstances.
7. The automatic avoidance always works.
8. Those people say that in order to have “moral” agents (the ones who can choose to stick that knife in, but decide not to) is better than having the automatically “good, kind, etc” agents.
9. And yet, we try to raise our children to be as close to the ideal, as possible.

So here is the dilemma: why is it better to fail to achieve the optimum (moral agents), than to reach it (“pseudo”-robots)? Of course the “good, caring, loving, etc…” people are NOT robots, they are just exceptionally good human beings. The trouble is that the darned “free will” got on the brain of some people to such an extent, that they are unable to comprehend that “more is sometimes less”. It is better to have less freedom to cause mayhem, then to have less limitation to it. In other words, we have too much freedom to destroy, and not enough freedom to build.

Of course I understand them. If they would realize that “free will” is not an absolute goal, that it needs to be tempered, then they could start to present the question: “why did God not eliminate the excessive freedom?”. And that would be a criticism of God, which they are unable or unwilling to undertake.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok. let’s talk about the OP. My theorem is this:

1. Kind, loving, caring behavior toward others is something we value. (There are the psychopaths who disagree.)
2. Therefore we try to teach our children to have those traits.
3. If we are successful to the degree when they are automatically kind, loving, etc. then we succeeded.
4. If someone needs time to decide: “should I stick this knife into my annoying neighbor?” and decides: “no”, it is inferior to the case when the violence does not even cross his mind.
5. But SOME people - for some unfathomable reason - prefer the volitional avoidance of violence to the instinctive, automatic choice of non-violence.
6. The volitional avoidance of violence may not work, in extreme circumstances.
7. The automatic avoidance always works.
8. Those people say that in order to have “moral” agents (the ones who can choose to stick that knife in, but decide not to) is better than having the automatically “good, kind, etc” agents.
9. And yet, we try to raise our children to be as close to the ideal, as possible.

So here is the dilemma: why is it better to fail to achieve the optimum (moral agents), than to reach it (“pseudo”-robots)? Of course the “good, caring, loving, etc…” people are NOT robots, they are just exceptionally good human beings. The trouble is that the darned “free will” got on the brain of some people to such an extent, that they are unable to comprehend that “more is sometimes less”. It is better to have less freedom to cause mayhem, then to have less limitation to it. In other words, we have too much freedom to destroy, and not enough freedom to build.

Of course I understand them. If they would realize that “free will” is not an absolute goal, that it needs to be tempered, then they could start to present the question: “why did God not eliminate the excessive freedom?”. And that would be a criticism of God, which they are unable or unwilling to undertake.

Without any explanation of the means by which free will can be tempered your hypothesis is worthless.