Fiction & Theodicies

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Okay, but if as you now affirm, strictly material beings 'could, in theory, possess minds of their own, why did you say earlier on that we could never build a robot that possessed a mind of its own. If in theory the strictly material mind could possibly possess free will, or a moral reasoning ability, then why did you make the absolute assertion that man could never build one?

What does it matter if so-called free will could or could not obtain in a robot, however composed? If a jelly donut had free will and could suffer such that moral categories could somehow apply to it, what would that mean, exactly? What would be the implications for theodicy? Or anthropodicy?

In any event, I don't see how anything vital hinges upon the question of the mechanical properties of sentient beings. Rather, both sides have entrenched assumptions one way or the other that are simply not definitive...

[JimL]

What does it matter if so-called free will could or could not obtain in a robot, however composed? If a jelly donut had free will and could suffer such that moral categories could somehow apply to it, what would that mean, exactly? What would be the implications for theodicy? Or anthropodicy?

In any event, I don't see how anything vital hinges upon the question of the mechanical properties of sentient beings. Rather, both sides have entrenched assumptions one way or the other that are simply not definitive...

Well, for one thing it was an assertion that sean made earlier on, so I was interested on what grounds he was basing that assertion. In post 291 he insisted that strictly material beings, i.e. robots, could never possess moral reasoning power. He has since switched his view and now claims that he never said that. The point he was trying to make, which is, of course, his belief, was that we are not our material bodies, that we are souls, that we are immaterial spirits that indwell our material bodies and that only as such could we have free will, or moral reasoning power. He believes this on theological grounds, thats true, but the case he made was not a case of belief, it was a bald assertion of fact. I think that he now sees that he has no logic with which to back up that assertion because the same logic denying free will to strictly material beings would apply also to the immaterial.

[seanD]

Well, for one thing it was an assertion that sean made earlier on, so I was interested on what grounds he was basing that assertion. In post 291 he insisted that strictly material beings, i.e. robots, could never possess moral reasoning power. He has since switched his view and now claims that he never said that. The point he was trying to make, which is, of course, his belief, was that we are not our material bodies, that we are souls, that we are immaterial spirits that indwell our material bodies and that only as such could we have free will, or moral reasoning power. He believes this on theological grounds, thats true, but the case he made was not a case of belief, it was a bald assertion of fact. I think that he now sees that he has no logic with which to back up that assertion because the same logic denying free will to strictly material beings would apply also to the immaterial.

That's not what I said, JimL. Stop citing my name if you're going to continue to dishonestly twist my arguments.

[technomage]

if are no better or no different, why are you then attacking a group for enforcing their will upon others?

Why are you disingenuously comparing apples to coconuts?

I have explained where the differences are, and why they exist. You ignore my statements, and continue to asks questions that I have already answered. I don't think we have anything more to discuss until you acknowledge that this particular argument of yours is disingenuous, I appreciate honest discourse, even when that discourse established that I am wrong. Disingenuous discourse is very distasteful,

[lilpixieofterror]

Why are you disingenuously comparing apples to coconuts?

I'm not, you just keep saying that and not explaining why, other then that is, your personal opinion.

I have explained where the differences are, and why they exist. You ignore my statements, and continue to asks questions that I have already answered. I don't think we have anything more to discuss until you acknowledge that this particular argument of yours is disingenuous, I appreciate honest discourse, even when that discourse established that I am wrong. Disingenuous discourse is very distasteful,

Sorry, I have responded to this and ignoring that response and repeating yourself doesn't make you look any better. Now, go ahead, do what you do with everybody else that proves you wrong. Whine, throw a fit, and declare that they are dishonest for daring to disagree with your greatness. Now I see why I didn't want to say anything to you to start with, everybody who disagrees with you is 'dishonest', eh?

[technomage]

I'm not, you just keep saying that and not explaining why

I have. Repeatedly.And while I may make jokes about simplified English, I do happen to know that you are not stupid. I'm therefore left with the conclusion that you are being disingenuous.

If you don't like the accusation ... tough. Not my problem. But I am not required to attempt to force someone to see something they choose to be blind to.

Good day to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

I have. Repeatedly.And while I may make jokes about simplified English, I do happen to know that you are not stupid. I'm therefore left with the conclusion that you are being disingenuous.

If you don't like the accusation ... tough. Not my problem. But I am not required to attempt to force someone to see something they choose to be blind to.

Good day to you.

No you haven't, but pick up your toys and go home after all... I must be 'blind' for daring to disagree with you.

[technomage]

No you haven't, but pick up your toys and go home after all... I must be 'blind' for daring to disagree with you.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It makes no difference to me.

Good day to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It makes no difference to me.

Good day to you.

Of course, everybody whom disagrees with you is wrong, eh?

[technomage]

Of course, everybody whom disagrees with you is wrong, eh?

If you can point out where I said that, please do. If not, then I bid you good day.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you can point out where I said that, please do. If not, then I bid you good day.

Sure, as soon as you point out why I am being 'dishonest' for pointing out how inconsistant you are being. Hey, if you can make up whatever motivations you want about me, I can do the same for you. Fair is fair, after all.

[technomage]

At this point, Pix, I owe you precisely nothing. You owe me precisely nothing--and if you did, I would rather forgive the debt than put up with the dissembling.

Go in peace. Or go in turmoil. I care not.

[lilpixieofterror]

At this point, Pix, I owe you precisely nothing. You owe me precisely nothing--and if you did, I would rather forgive the debt than put up with the dissembling.

Go in peace. Or go in turmoil. I care not.

Considering I am not upset, I do not see 'going in turmoil', but I just find it funny that it is ok for you to accuse me of things, without evidence, but I can't return the favor. Fair is fair, don't you agree?

[technomage]

I am not upset

You aren't? Wonderful! Happy for you!

Hae a nice day!