Re: Christianity
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:47 pm
You don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?
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.
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.Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:47 pmYou don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?
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?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:48 pmYou'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?
Maybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:50 pm Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.
Well, you need to define what you mean by "programming."Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:01 pmMaybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:50 pm Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.
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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:52 pmI'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:48 pmYou'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 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:11 pmThat'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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:52 pmI'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:48 pm
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 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:15 pmI'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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:11 pmThat'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 disagree. Conscience can be a powerful thing, even for an Atheist, at least in my experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:19 pmI 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:15 pmI'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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:11 pm
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.
It's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:38 pmNo 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.
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.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:21 pmI disagree. Conscience can be a powerful thing, even for an Atheist, at least in my experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:19 pmI 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:15 pm
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".
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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:25 pmIt's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:38 pmNo 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.
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.Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:47 pmYou don't think it's possible that programming can enable and support the experience of free will and moral responsibility?
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:26 pm 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.