Christianity

[Lacewing]

would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

We're free wills and we're morally responsible.

You don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?

[Immanuel Can]

No life form is a "machine".

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

[Immanuel Can]

would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

We're free wills and we're morally responsible.

You don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?

Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does. Thus, morality is wiped out: you can't blame a coffee-grinder for grinding coffee, when you programmed it to do it. And you can't blame or praise a human being for what he/she did, if he/she was simply programmed to do it. Thus, morality is simply gone: it has no reality.

[Gary Childress]

No life form is a "machine".

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist". What is with you and condemning people who are skeptical of whether there is a God to amoralism? This is a gambit you play just to coerce people to your view. There is no evidence that there cannot be morality without a diety. If you were honest, you'd admit it. Or perhaps you're just ignorant? Is that it?

[Lacewing]

Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.

Maybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?

[Immanuel Can]

Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.

Maybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?

Well, you need to define what you mean by "programming."

What it seems to me you're wanting to call "programming" isn't literal "programming." It's things like learning and the making of choices, perhaps. But if it's done by a "self" and to yourself, then it's not actually "programming." It bears no resemblance to what a computer does, because computers have no self-awareness, and no volition. They can only do what they are programmed to do, even when, to us, that yields an appearance of randomness or "choice." It's a fake, because the computer has no possibility of awareness. It's just running the program.

[Immanuel Can]

No life form is a "machine".

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

[Gary Childress]

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

I agree. We all have a thing called a "conscience." We do know when we're being evil. But then, I believe we have that because God built it into us, so I can say such a thing. Why anybody should listen to their "conscience" or even have one, is not so easy to say from all perspectives.

[Gary Childress]

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

I agree. We all have a thing called a "conscience." We do know when we're being evil. But then, I believe we have that because God built it into us, so I can say such a thing. Why anybody should listen to their "conscience" or even have one, is not so easy to say from all perspectives.

I disagree. Conscience can be a powerful thing, even for an Atheist, at least in my experience.

[henry quirk]

No life form is a "machine". "Machines" are made of inanimate matter that aren't sentient or conscious and generally serve the needs of living beings. Hence the reason for the existence of the study of philosophy of mind--trying determine (among many things) whether computers can be sentient or conscious. You're stuck in a category error with that kind of language.

It's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

I agree. We all have a thing called a "conscience." We do know when we're being evil. But then, I believe we have that because God built it into us, so I can say such a thing. Why anybody should listen to their "conscience" or even have one, is not so easy to say from all perspectives.

I disagree. Conscience can be a powerful thing, even for an Atheist, at least in my experience.

I didn't say it can't. I said it could. But an Atheist still has zero reason to believe his conscience is telling him anything real...especially if he tells himself that his morality is merely subjective and personal. Reason would tell him to override that, and do whatever he wants.

That means the Atheist is simply tormented by a feeling he has no reason to believe means anything. It may even make him behave himself, because conscience is a persistent thing. But he can't explain why it does that to him, or that it refers to anything real.

[Gary Childress]

No life form is a "machine". "Machines" are made of inanimate matter that aren't sentient or conscious and generally serve the needs of living beings. Hence the reason for the existence of the study of philosophy of mind--trying determine (among many things) whether computers can be sentient or conscious. You're stuck in a category error with that kind of language.

It's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.

It's not clear to me that other living beings lack free will completely. Perhaps they work in different frames of mind but even most predators don't kill just because they can, usually it's out of fear or survival need.

[henry quirk]

would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

We're free wills and we're morally responsible.

You don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?

No, I don't. If man is just another meat machine, like the shark, then he is determined, just another link in a causal chain. Stan believing he is a morally responsible free will would be just what Stan would have to think and do and be. He chooses nuthin', is responsible for nuthin'. If he does good he deserves no credit: if he does bad he deserves no blame. Like the shark, he is programmed.

[Gary Childress]

But an Atheist still has zero reason to believe his conscience is telling him anything real...especially if he tells himself that his morality is merely subjective and personal. Reason would tell him to override that, and do whatever he wants.

Again, I disagree. Children socialize regardless of their community. Even cannibals will adopt certain "rules". That still doesn't make me think cannibalism is a desirable social arrangement. If you were an atheist, then you might be able to speak for them, but you're not. That's the biggest problem that I see. I've been an atheist and an agnostic. I've tried theism and can't get past the social reconditioning at this point. Most people I meet in Chuch are nice, however, I just can't get past the stack of assumptions the clergy read. To me, growing up in a religious community would be like growing up in Victorian England or something as far as I'm concerned.