If the robot was programmed with free will, would you then say that the programmer has zero responsibility if the robot goes astray, and that it was nothing to do with the programming?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Interesting
- Thread starter King Mob
- Start date
If the robot was programmed with free will, would you then say that the programmer has zero responsibility if the robot goes astray, and that it was nothing to do with the programming?
- Dec 27, 2009
- 11,821
- 3,230
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Divorced
When we buy an electrical appliance today, most often it comes with an owners manual, or instructions,
often it is in about 100 different languages,
when you eventually find your language,
It starts with warnings,
often too boring to read, especially when you want to get going with it.
Also it usually comes with a garantee, which states that no compensation is given for wrong use.
Why not try to sort out, what is "Choice" and what is "Free choice?"
Upvote
0
Choice...mmm good choice of word. God would have appeared to have made a choice when he stood by and watched 1.5million kids be gassed.
Upvote
0
You didn't answer the question. I'm going to make an assumption here, so please correct me if it is wrong: You would blame the creator of the vacuum cleaner, not the vacuum cleaner itself.
You obviously don't understand software programming, then. Robot vacuum cleaners make decisions all the time. They do not all respond in the same way to the same inputs. But that's beside the point - what I'm driving at is that you are prepared to blame the human creator of a device which does exactly what it is designed to do, but you blame mankind, not the creator, for doing exactly what it is designed to do.
Upvote
0
The robot analogy is very limited - we can never create a robot that truly has 'free will'. It can only make choices based on the way it is programmed.
One of the unique features of humanity is this attribute of 'free will'. We do not have the ability to create something with genuine 'free will' - only God can do this. We genuinely can make choices that are not due to programming - this comes with responsibility and is the ONLY way humans could have a genuine relationship with God.
If (like a robot) we were programmed to do 'evil', that the programmer would unquestionably be to blame. The reality is the 'evil' was a possibility when humanity was created - without it, there could be no such thing as 'good' - equally, you can never know what it is to be happy unless you also know what it is to be sad. This does not mean God created 'evil' - 'evil' is not a created thing - it is a moral description of something...
Also, Gods attribute of omnipotence is greatly misunderstood. God cannot do EVERYTHING - He cannot make square circles, He cannot lie, He cannot force someone to love Him. God waits and yearns for man to turn to Him...if we were forced, no true relationship exists and love has to be a choice. The robot analogy does not work when comparing Gods creation of man...
Upvote
0
Wow, that's a lot of big claims to be making. I assume you can back all of them up?
Neither the robot or mankind is programmed to do evil. The programming leads to a decision - in robots and mankind that is the responsibility of the designer.
Irrelevant.
It does if you stop moving the goalposts. Please answer this question - under what circumstances is the designer not accountable for the actions and behaviours of the thing that has been designed?
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Seems an odd comparison, to compare something fairly obviously deterministic (a sunset) with something that's the result of human choice.
As well, one has to consider one's starting assumptions. If one presumes a-priori that God is love them one is going to interpret one of those as being God's intention and the other as not being God's intention.
Upvote
0
How do you know we can "genuinely" make our own choices?
How do you know that we can't program a robot with free will?
You are making some massive claims here.
Upvote
0
Why do you think the designer is no longer accountable for his creation? After all, the thing is doing exactly what the designer designed it to do.
Upvote
0
Guys, I am not making massive revolutionary claims here that I have to 'back up' - this is a forum...not some academic journal publication...
For me, this has to do with the nature of a true relationship. You cannot have a mutually loving relationship with a robot - the robot will ONLY do what you program it to do. You can program a robot to make decisions BUT it will only decide things based on the programmed choices of its designer. This is not an academic statement - it's common sense. By the way, this argument you are using provides very powerful evidence for the designer of human beings. If I suggested robots could arise without any designer at all, you would rightly think I was crazy!
In the case of humans, we have ONLY been created for the purposes of a mutually loving relationship with our Creator. This has to come with the attribute of genuine 'free-will' or it can never be a genuine relationship. As an example, if we were ever to be able to create 100 robots, they would not be able to genuinely 'love' other robots or make choices to be faithful/loyal to a particular robot for a lifetime - humans have this attribute and it demonstrates 'free-will'.
It is very difficult to define 'free-will' and even harder to test it. However, it's an attribute that human beings have in my opinion and also (in my opinion) it's an attribute I don't think we can give a robot - only God has the knowledge and power to create a creature with 'free-will'.
Upvote
0
The usual "I don't have to have any justification for my claims" defence.
As a general rule, that usually indicates the claimant has no idea rather than that they cannot be bothered supporting their arguments.
No, it doesn't. It is your argument there is a designer, but you don't think the designer should take any responsibility for their creations. My argument is that the actions we see point to a lack of a designer. But if there is a designer that being is responsible for everything, not just the the nice parts you want them to be responsible for.
Really? Based on what?
No, it doesn't. Love does not demonstrate free will.
That still avoids answering the question of why giving mankind freewill abrogates God from any responsibility for mankind's actions. I notice you have avoided answering tony's question about who would be accountable if we could programme a robot with free will.
Why is the designer not responsible for his own creation? Simple answer - because it would make my religious beliefs wrong.
Upvote
0
ianb321red
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 1,775
- 35
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
As BB says, you seem to want to avoid the questions totally.
You are making massive claims, and are claiming to know far more about how thoughts are generated, and about artificial intelligence, than the top scientists in these field do.
You are correct in one thing - free will is very hard to define, perhaps impossible. If you can't even define free will, then it is ridiculous to start saying that humans have this attribute, and that robots can never have it.
What we know so far is that decision making is strongly affected by:
1. The culture you grow up in.
2. Your genetics.
3. How your parents raise you.
None of this is controlled by you.
You are making massive claims, and are claiming to know far more about how thoughts are generated, and about artificial intelligence, than the top scientists in these field do.
You are correct in one thing - free will is very hard to define, perhaps impossible. If you can't even define free will, then it is ridiculous to start saying that humans have this attribute, and that robots can never have it.
What we know so far is that decision making is strongly affected by:
1. The culture you grow up in.
2. Your genetics.
3. How your parents raise you.
None of this is controlled by you.
Upvote
0
ianb321red
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 1,775
- 35
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The Bible.
God created man in his own image and the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God created man and that He created him for His glory
Isaiah 43:7 - "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.
Upvote
0
ianb321red
Well-Known Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 1,775
- 35
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This is such a bad argument and fails on so many levels.
Think of how many designers there are of things - cars, aeroplanes, buildings and so on....
Do the original designers of the motor car take total responsibility for all car crashes? Do the original designers of the aeroplane take full responsibility for all airline crashes?
To be consistent you say "if there is a designer that being is responsible for everything".
You are ignoring the obvious fact that a pilot or a car driver - with the free will and importantly RESPONSIBILITY to drive or pilot the vehicle safely, can make an error. Is that the designers fault?
I believe God is the designer - BUT - I believe we are created with free will AND a conscience. We are also prone to error and misjudgment. We make mistakes.
If God wanted to create us to never make errors, mistakes, poor judgment, and have no conscience - he could have, but we would not have had the choice to do otherwise.
Why can't YOU take responsibility for YOU?
To me it's very simple - it's a bit like an arranged marriage. What would you prefer to be forced in to a relationship or to be given the choice to choose?
God gives us the opportunity choose or reject him - it means if you choose then you do so because it is your own choice and is genuine. I think this demonstrates a far greater love than what you're suggesting....
Upvote
0
- Dec 27, 2009
- 11,821
- 3,230
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Your choice of Words can be confusing, if I were to take you on your Word.
1,5 million Young goats?
Nevermind, to continue,
A question,
Is this "Life" the only chance we get?"
What say you?
One question plus Another.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 27, 2009
- 11,821
- 3,230
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Divorced
So He has been reduced to a factory owner.
http://youtu.be/Jm_HUhHKWC0
The Hoho can apply, He laughs at the schemes of man.
http://youtu.be/Jm_HUhHKWC0
The Hoho can apply, He laughs at the schemes of man.
Upvote
0
It's really quite sad that you cannot understand the difference between design fault, poor quality control and user error. Quick examples: When a wing falls off a plane because the joint was poorly designed, it is the designer's responsibility. When an instrument fails and causes a plane crash, the manufacturer is responsible. When a pilot does something stupid and causes a crash, the pilot is responsible.
Now, if you want to extend that to mankind feel free. You're happy to claim that God is the designer. You're also happy that God is the manufacturer. That's 2 out of 3. I'd be interested to see who you think is the pilot of a human
So God is responsible for making us how we are, but it is not his responsibility that we act how he designed us?
I can. It's people like you who have to make up stories and excuses for the existence our faults.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Danny's claims were:
1. We were created ONLY for the purpose of a mutually loving relationship with God.
2. That relationship can only exist if we have free will.
Your response says we were created for God's glory - it contradicts the first claim and says nothing about the second.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
