Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[Sparko]

I'll leave it to Seer to indicate whether or not he agrees with your assessment. I frankly have no idea why this has continued on for as long as it has, or what the issue is.

Given that your stated intent was to try to help the two of us see what the impasse was, I apologize for my comment in the previous post. It was inappropriate. I am probably guilty of assuming that your apparent dislike of me was coloring your responses, and reacting defensively when no attack was intended. My thanks for your attempt.

We'll see what Seer has to say.

Yeah I was just seeing you two go at it (again) and noticed you seemed to be using the word "rational" in different ways and I wanted to find out what you meant by it. Seer still hasn't answered me on what HE means by "rational"

[Adrift]

No - I actually wasn't. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite. But that is how what I said was actually received and interpreted by several (apparently) and how it was responded to.

You were. And yes, I saw the wild contortions you later went through to justify why Christians you claimed were committing bigotry were not bigots. Just another example of you holding inconsistent views so that no one can nail you on anything.

[carpedm9587]

https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-inte/

Much as intentionality (“aboutness” or representation) is central to intelligence, felt qualities (so-called “qualia”) are crucial to sentience. Here, drawing on Aristotle, medieval thinkers distinguished between the “passive intellect” wherein the soul is affected, and the “active intellect” wherein the soul forms conceptions, draws inferences, makes judgments, and otherwise acts. Orthodoxy identified the soul proper (the immortal part) with the active rational element. Unfortunately, disagreement over how these two (qualitative-experiential and cognitive-intentional) factors relate is as rife as disagreement over what things think; and these disagreements are connected. Those who dismiss the seeming intelligence of computers because computers lack feelings seem to hold qualia to be necessary for intentionality. Those like Descartes, who dismiss the seeming sentience of nonhuman animals because he believed animals don’t think, apparently hold intentionality to be necessary for qualia. Others deny one or both necessities, maintaining either the possibility of cognition absent qualia (as Christian orthodoxy, perhaps, would have the thought-processes of God, angels, and the saints in heaven to be), or maintaining the possibility of feeling absent cognition (as Aristotle grants the lower animals).

Take note of a couple things here. This is a secular website discussing artificial intelligence, and yet it makes reference to Christian thought to explain these concepts. Intentionality is cited as central to intelligence...intentionality requires free will.

Yes - it does. No argument here on that point. But we were not discussing intelligence OR intentionality. We were discussing rationality.

Have you heard of the Turing test, carp?

Yes.

The inventor of computers knew they were not rational machines and devised a method of testing when they could have become rational. What say you to that?

Now you're in my field. While Alan Turing is indeed often thought of as the founder of the modern computer age, he is certainly not the first to conceive of the concept of a computer. Indeed, Babbage conceived of the difference engine over 100 years before Turing, and Lovelace is considered the first one to conceive of the concept of a "computer program," including the logic and looping used by modern computers.

As for the Turing Test, it was not designed to test if a computer is rational but rather to test if the computer is "thinking like a human being." Indeed, the primary thing Turing was looking to establish was "is it sentient?" In other words, Turing simply proposed that we humans, being sentient, are the best judge of sentience and whether or not it has been achieved by a given machine. It might interest you to know that we now have an instance of a computer passing the Turing Test. Despite that, I don't think modern computers have yet achieved true sentience, so Turing's test was by no means conclusive.

And all of this is essentially beside the point. Our discussion was "is it rational," not "is it sentient" or "does it think like a human."

I have said, several times, that you two (Seer and you) appear to be adding to the definition of "rational" things that are not part of the definition of the word. Sparko has pointed out differences in language usage. I continue to think that you two are not using the term "rational" in it's conventional sense.

A sentient being can be rational or irrational, so sentience is not an assurance of rationality.
An idea can be rational or irrational.
An object can act/choose/operate rationally, irrationally, or nonrationally.

All the word "rational" means is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." A computer is operating in accordance with logic. That is its very designed purpose. Ergo, it is a rational machine. It is not sentient. It is not "thinking."

[carpedm9587]

You were. And yes, I saw the wild contortions you later went through to justify why Christians you claimed were committing bigotry were not bigots. Just another example of you holding inconsistent views so that no one can nail you on anything.

I'll leave your assessments to you, Adrift. Thanks for the chat.

[Adrift]

I'll leave your assessments to you, Adrift. Thanks for the chat.

It's not an assessment. It's the plain reading that anyone can see example of here and here.

Or that anyone can parse in this thread here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...y+christianity (especially of Christians who hold that homosexuality is immoral, as you state here, and which includes most of the Christians on this website).

[carpedm9587]

It's not an assessment. It's the plain reading that anyone can see example of here and here.

Or that anyone can parse in this thread here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...y+christianity (especially of Christians who hold that homosexuality is immoral, as you state here, and which includes most of the Christians on this website).

I'll let the readers come to their own conclusion, and invite folks to visit and read those posts. However, I do acknowledge that my language in the second link was sloppy. CP and I have often traded comments about "casting too wide a net" and I was sloppy in that post and did exactly that. I used the word "Christians" without qualification when I should have said "Many Christians." Anyone who has read my posts and positions on this would likely know that I recognize (and have identified) several Christian sects that have not taken an anti-LGBTQ stance, so I cannot actually think "all Christians." And I do not even think "most Christians" are bigots. I think the position held by many Christians, specifically with respect to the LGBTQ community, is a bigoted one. I also think it is possible for a person who holds a bigoted view in one area to not generally be "a bigot" (as I noted in one of those posts). My wife is a prime example. She is supportive of the LGBTQ community, fights racism and racial intolerance, and many other forms of prejudice. But she grew up as an Italian in a largely Irish part of Boston and her youth was filled with some very nasty encounters and exchanges between those cultures. Now, when St. Patrick's day comes up each year, the antipathy she developed for "Irish" things surfaces. It's an understandable reaction, but it is (unfortunately) a bigoted one. I love her, but there is little/no discussing this with her. It's a "blind spot." Fortunately, it only comes up around that holiday, and is not generally aimed at any particular person (i.e., she has several friends and now family members who are Irish and loves them dearly).

I'm sure I have a few of my own (I can just hear the reaction to that statement now...). In a nutshell - I think the LGBTQ position many Christians have is a bigoted one. I don't think Christians are generally bigots, and I certainly don't think they all are.

And with that I am going to let you have the last word. I do not wish to derail Seer's thread further.

[JonathanL]

It seems pretty clear to me that what Seer means by rational is "having the ability to reason". And to me it's clear as day that no matter how complex it has become, no computer or program so far has been able to attain that sort of rationality yet, nor is the prospect good of any computer or program ever attaining that sort of rationality (by which I'm saying that I disagree with Carpe's assessment of the brain/mind as a giant computer. There are no good reasons in my opinion to hold that belief). It is "rational" however in the definition that Carpe has provided, but I fail to see how that definition is even relevant to the discussion. As has already been pointed out before, pretty much everything in existence that we know of would fit under that definition of rational, since all that is required for anything to fit that definition is that it's existence and processes do not violate any laws of logic, and there is nothing we know of that exists that has been demonstrated to not fulfill that criteria.

[seer]

Again, you are meaning "UTILIZING/APPLYING Logic and Reason" but your definition says "in accordance with" - and I think that is the confusion here. And why you and seer are talking past each other.

Rational: free thought where you get to weigh propositions, ideas and evidence and come to your own conclusions. Not where the underlying forces of nature dictate what you believe or think. Where you have no choice in believing and thinking as you do.

Let me quote: If there is no free will, then no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. One could never adjudicate between a good idea and a bad one. He’d only believe what he does because he’s been predetermined to do so.

So I do not believe that A is true because of good reasons, I believe A is true, at bottom, because the laws of nature determined that I do.

[JimL]

Rational: free thought where you get to weigh propositions, ideas and evidence and come to your own conclusions. Not where the underlying forces of nature dictate what you believe or think. Where you have no choice in believing and thinking as you do.

Personally I think the problem is in that you believe that you are something other than your brain. You, your brain, with the information contained within it, weighs the evidence and comes to conclusions, in the same manner in which you believe the homunculus in your pineal gland does it. What kind of "thinking system" do you think that your homunculus itself, or ghost in the machine, is utilizing? All you are doing is moving the goal post, so to speak, without defining what it is you are talking about.

Let me quote: If there is no free will, then no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. One could never adjudicate between a good idea and a bad one. HeÂ’d only believe what he does because heÂ’s been predetermined to do so.

I don't think so. You are always susceptable to, and free to, seek new information, information that could bring you to different conclusions than previously held beliefs.

So I do not believe that A is true because of good reasons, I believe A is true, at bottom, because the laws of nature determined that I do.

Nope. You believe A because of the reasons you have for believing A.

[JonathanL]

Personally I think the problem is in that you believe that you are something other than your brain.

Well, you clearly are something other than your brain. Any theory of mind that reduces the mind to simply the internal processes of the brain is clearly intellectually bankrupt and flies in the face of every single experience that we have about what the mind is. Emergentism is one of the few viable theories of mind that a materialist could hold to, and that's ignoring the fact that there is yet not convincing explanation as to how exactly a brain can give rise to a mind/consciousness simply by being complex enough. But under emergentism you (i.e your mind) is clearly not the same thing as your brain, even if your existence is dependent on your brain, because they're still two distinct things.

[firstfloor]

firstfloor can help you out with this one but he is currently in the middle of the Minch and the phone battery is running a little l

[tabibito]

Indeed, the primary thing Turing was looking to establish was "is it sentient?" In other words, Turing simply proposed that we humans, being sentient, are the best judge of sentience and whether or not it has been achieved by a given machine. It might interest you to know that we now have an instance of a computer passing the Turing Test. Despite that, I don't think modern computers have yet achieved true sentience, so Turing's test was by no means conclusive.

I'm not sure that even some of the people I meet could pass the Turing test: or rather --- some few definitely couldn't.

[Adrift]

I also think it is possible for a person who holds a bigoted view in one area to not generally be "a bigot" (as I noted in one of those posts). My wife is a prime example. She is supportive of the LGBTQ community, fights racism and racial intolerance, and many other forms of prejudice. But she grew up as an Italian in a largely Irish part of Boston and her youth was filled with some very nasty encounters and exchanges between those cultures. Now, when St. Patrick's day comes up each year, the antipathy she developed for "Irish" things surfaces. It's an understandable reaction, but it is (unfortunately) a bigoted one. I love her, but there is little/no discussing this with her. It's a "blind spot." Fortunately, it only comes up around that holiday, and is not generally aimed at any particular person (i.e., she has several friends and now family members who are Irish and loves them dearly).

I'm sure I have a few of my own (I can just hear the reaction to that statement now...). In a nutshell - I think the LGBTQ position many Christians have is a bigoted one. I don't think Christians are generally bigots, and I certainly don't think they all are.

Again, I'm familiar with the contortions you go through to, on one side of your face claim that Christians who hold a Biblical view on sexual behavior commit bigotry, and on the other side of your face claim that they are not generally "bigots" so you can't be nailed for throwing around appellations of your own, or for accusing others of things that are "uncivil and simply wrong." I'm also aware that you have no problem constantly contradicting yourself as the posts I linked show.

And too bad seer doesn't earn the same treatment as your wife when it comes to the bigot pass.

And with that I am going to let you have the last word. I do not wish to derail Seer's thread further.

[Tassman]

It seems pretty clear to me that what Seer means by rational is "having the ability to reason". And to me it's clear as day that no matter how complex it has become, no computer or program so far has been able to attain that sort of rationality yet, nor is the prospect good of any computer or program ever attaining that sort of rationality (by which I'm saying that I disagree with Carpe's assessment of the brain/mind as a giant computer. There are no good reasons in my opinion to hold that belief). It is "rational" however in the definition that Carpe has provided, but I fail to see how that definition is even relevant to the discussion. As has already been pointed out before, pretty much everything in existence that we know of would fit under that definition of rational, since all that is required for anything to fit that definition is that it's existence and processes do not violate any laws of logic, and there is nothing we know of that exists that has been demonstrated to not fulfill that criteria.

Computers/AI will inevitably attain that sort of rationality and powers of reasoning. In principle they are no different from Homo sapiens in this regard. Every animal, including us is an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. Hence, there is no reason to think that non-organic organisms such as AI will never be able to replicate and surpass human intelligence.

[little_monkey]

I believe the universe is repeatable and predictable. That repeatability/predictability can be represented symbolicly as "laws" or "rules" or "concepts" that describe how the universe operates. If there is no mind to represent these principles (or whatever you wish to call them), then the universe continues to function, indifferent to the lack of symbolic representation of its operation.

Take the sentence,"Cats are mammals". It's a human construct as the universe doesn't designate things as mammal or non-mammal but humans do. That we assign a true value to that sentence is also a human construct. To then consider that the rules of logic is how the universe operates would be soundly stupid.