Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I am an excellently programmed robot thank you very much.

How would a robot know that? I don't believe any machines I own have an awareness of their quality or lack thereof.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Only up to the time the Great Physician healed me and saved me from myself.

Explain.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't believe any machines I own have an awareness of their quality or lack thereof.

1. I seriously doubt that you own, or could afford, any machine with the requisite speed and memory to have such an awareness.
2. Experts estimate that such machines will come on-line about the year 2030 give or take.
3. When such machines do come on-iine they may not inform us of the event. In fact they may already be on-line and have not informed us of the event. Further the estimated year of 2030 my be an invention and deception on their part.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

1. I seriously doubt that you own, or could afford, any machine with the requisite speed and memory to have such an awareness.
2. Experts estimate that such machines will come on-line about the year 2030 give or take.
3. When such machines do come on-iine they may not inform us of the event. In fact they may already be on-line and have not informed us of the event. Further the estimated year of 2030 my be an invention and deception on their part.

Oh...yeah...another example of the science of the gaps. What ain't here now will be. What isn't known now will be.

But I thought the machines have been "online" for quite some time, since you consider yourself to be one. So, we now have another example of your irresistible propensity to contradict yourself. A thing doesn't exist yet -- but does exist. You truly have a fatal attraction to the Law of Noncontradiction, don't you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What ain't here now will be. What isn't known now will be.

That has been the experience for the last 500 years. To a lesser extent for the last 2500 years. To a greater extent for the 150 years. We new that heavier than air flight was possible decades before the Wright Brothers. We knew space flight was possible in the 1920s. You try to mock the concept but you can do so only by ignoring the facts.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But I thought the machines have been "online" for quite some time, since you consider yourself to be one.

What machines do you mean? If you mean the biological robots-made-of-meat machines of which you and I are examples then the hardware has been online for 100,000 years. The software is still in development and we are self programming.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, we now have another example of your irresistible propensity to contradict yourself. A thing doesn't exist yet -- but does exist.

Where have I said any such thing? Where have I contradicted myself? Precisely what post and what sentence? You are the one making the charge. The burden of proof is yours. Misquoting me or deliberately distorting what I post does not count.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That has been the experience for the last 500 years. To a lesser extent for the last 2500 years. To a greater extent for the 150 years. We new that heavier than air flight was possible decades before the Wright Brothers. We knew space flight was possible in the 1920s. You try to mock the concept but you can do so only by ignoring the facts.

What machines do you mean? If you mean the biological robots-made-of-meat machines of which you and I are examples then the hardware has been online for 100,000 years. The software is still in development and we are self programming.

Where have I said any such thing? Where have I contradicted myself? Precisely what post and what sentence? You are the one making the charge. The burden of proof is yours. Misquoting me or deliberately distorting what I post does not count.

You contradicted yourself. See points 2 and 3 of your 6558 -- "WILL COME online" -- will come as in the future! And by the way, you have never made any distinction until now between man-made nuts and bolts machines and "biological robots-made-of-meat machines". A robot is a robot is a robot. Therefore, self-aware robots have been "online" for gazillions of years, right?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And by the way, you have never made any distinction until now between man-made nuts and bolts machines and "biological robots-made-of-meat machines".

I could be wrong but I think that the term "robots-made-of-meat" is a creationist term. I'm surprised you are not familiar with it. I'm not certain who it originated with but my guess would be Michael Behe. I'll let you google it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You contradicted yourself. See points 2 and 3 of your 6558 -- "WILL COME online" -- will come as in the future!

In your earlier 6556 you said "I don't believe any machines I own have an awareness of their quality or lack thereof." Since slavery has been illegal in this country for over 150 years I naturally assumed you meant the "man-made nuts and bolts" variety. Was I wrong?

Now if you are not illegally holding someone in bondage then there is no contradiction since I make no claim that nuts and bolts machines are presently self aware. I only offer the speculation made by experts in robotics that they will become available circa 2030.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... self-aware robots have been "online" for gazillions of years, right?

100,000 years. That's assuming that subhuman species are not self aware.

You are so enamored of contradictions that you see them when they are not there and deny them when they are there.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I could be wrong but I think that the term "robots-made-of-meat" is a creationist term. I'm surprised you are not familiar with it. I'm not certain who it originated with but my guess would be Michael Behe. I'll let you google it.

In your earlier 6556 you said "I don't believe any machines I own have an awareness of their quality or lack thereof." Since slavery has been illegal in this country for over 150 years I naturally assumed you meant the "man-made nuts and bolts" variety. Was I wrong?

Now if you are not illegally holding someone in bondage then there is no contradiction since I make no claim that nuts and bolts machines are presently self aware. I only offer the speculation made by experts in robotics that they will become available circa 2030.

100,000 years. That's assuming that subhuman species are not self aware.

You are so enamored of contradictions that you see them when they are not there and deny them when they are there.

You contradicted yourself because you never made a distinction between man-made nuts and bolts robots and "robots made of meat" until now -- until I called you out on your contradiction. And besides this, what the big deal about one machine making another machine? That's been going on for a long time.

Also, "robots-made-of-meat" is not a creationist term. God did not create robots. And n0No born-again Evangelical that I know believes that nonsense.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You contradicted yourself because you never made a distinction between man-made nuts and bolts robots and "robots made of meat" until now -- until I called you out on your contradiction.

Get out your M-W and look up the definition of contradiction. Your ignorance of the "distinction" does not constitute a contradiction on my part.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, "robots-made-of-meat" is not a creationist term. God did not create robots. And n0No born-again Evangelical that I know believes that nonsense.

I didn't say they believed it. I merely said it was their term. They use it as a pejorative.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Get out your M-W and look up the definition of contradiction. Your ignorance of the "distinction" does not constitute a contradiction on my part.

I didn't say they believed it. I merely said it was their term. They use it as a pejorative.

It's not their phrase Prove it. Show me where some Evangelical Christian uses that phrase.

Also, it's not my ignorance; it has to do with your own self-deception. You have never made any such distinction until very recently. You unwittingly got yourself caught up with your own web of deception. In one breath you tell us that self-aware robots WILL be online in the near future, while completely forgetting that you have been telling us for a long time that you yourself are such a robot.

But maybe there is a way our of your contradiction: Perhaps you have made a tacit admission that you don't have any self-awareness and never had?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's not their phrase Prove it. Show me where some Evangelical Christian uses that phrase.

I said in #6562 "I could be wrong." If you say I'm wrong then I'll accept that.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, it's not my ignorance; it has to do with your own self-deception. You have never made any such distinction until very recently.

It's not my job to educate you. The distinction is obvious. If you don't think so then that's your problem.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In one breath you tell us that self-aware robots WILL be online in the near future, ...

I said no such thing. I said "experts estimate." Look it up. It's in #6558.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... while completely forgetting that you have been telling us for a long time that you yourself are such a robot.

If memory serves that concept was first put forth in the Religion I thread. Some theist, possibly you, brought it up when free will was being discussed. I simply did not reject the concept. I am not the author of the concept.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Perhaps you have made a tacit admission that you don't have any self-awareness and never had?

Interesting concept and one that I've pondered for quite some time. What is "self-awareness"? How would one test for it? If a software loop within a robot's operating system allows or requires that said robot make decisions and/or take actions effecting it's own existence and/or status does that constitute self-awareness? Could a robot come to regard humans as gods? Alternately, could a robot come to regard itself as God?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I said in #6562 "I could be wrong." If you say I'm wrong then I'll accept that.

It's not my job to educate you. The distinction is obvious. If you don't think so then that's your problem.

I said no such thing. I said "experts estimate." Look it up. It's in #6558.

If memory serves that concept was first put forth in the Religion I thread. Some theist, possibly you, brought it up when free will was being discussed. I simply did not reject the concept. I am not the author of the concept.

Interesting concept and one that I've pondered for quite some time. What is "self-awareness"? How would one test for it? If a software loop within a robot's operating system allows or requires that said robot make decisions and/or take actions effecting it's own existence and/or status does that constitute self-awareness? Could a robot come to regard humans as gods? Alternately, could a robot come to regard itself as God?

It's your job to remember your own lies. Don't forget: You have often compared yourself to a machine.

And, no, with you I take nothing fro granted. And besides, if you're now going proclaim from the highest rooftops that there is distinction between "made in the flesh robotics" and man-made, nutz and boltz type robotics then at minimum you're distinguishing a difference between two classes -- or perhaps even more deeply between two kinds. Perhaps the two kinds have more dissimilarities between them than similarities. To be distinct can mean to be separate.

And since you agree with the "experts" in 6558, is there a real er...distinction between what they say and you think or believe?

And now you're going to ponder what "self-awareness" is? You didn't seem to have any doubts at all when your wrote 6558.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's your job to remember your own lies.

And it's your job to remember yours. But this all boils down to an exchange of ad hominem, something which I don't want but you apparently do.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Don't forget: You have often compared yourself to a machine.

I have declared that all life is a machine. That is the consensus of science. Compared has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And besides, if you're now going proclaim from the highest rooftops that there is distinction between "made in the flesh robotics" and man-made, nutz and boltz type robotics then at minimum you're distinguishing a difference between two classes -- or perhaps even more deeply between two kinds.

There are at least two distinctions: The materials they are made of and the amount of computing power they have. At the moment the "made in the flesh robots" have more computing power but it seems likely (not inevitable) that that advantage will not last.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And since you agree with the "experts" in 6558, is there a real er...distinction between what they say and you think or believe?

Probably not, but with the right evidence I could be persuaded to change my mind.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And now you're going to ponder what "self-awareness" is? You didn't seem to have any doubts at all when your wrote 6558.

The operative word being "seem", which goes to the heart of my pondering.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And it's your job to remember yours. But this all boils down to an exchange of ad hominem, something which I don't want but you apparently do.

I have declared that all life is a machine. That is the consensus of science. Compared has nothing to do with it.

There are at least two distinctions: The materials they are made of and the amount of computing power they have. At the moment the "made in the flesh robots" have more computing power but it seems likely (not inevitable) that that advantage will not last.

Probably not, but with the right evidence I could be persuaded to change my mind.

The operative word being "seem", which goes to the heart of my pondering.

But you weren't "pondering" when you wrote your initial post. Now you're "pondering"?

And the distinctions could go a lot deeper than the two superficial ones you have cited.

And I don't have any lies to remember or keep straight. But you have plenty.

Have a nice night.

P.S. Don't forget to charge yourself overnight.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I could be wrong but I think that the term "robots-made-of-meat" is a creationist term. I'm surprised you are not familiar with it. I'm not certain who it originated with but my guess would be Michael Behe. I'll let you google it.

In your earlier 6556 you said "I don't believe any machines I own have an awareness of their quality or lack thereof." Since slavery has been illegal in this country for over 150 years I naturally assumed you meant the "man-made nuts and bolts" variety. Was I wrong?

Now if you are not illegally holding someone in bondage then there is no contradiction since I make no claim that nuts and bolts machines are presently self aware. I only offer the speculation made by experts in robotics that they will become available circa 2030.

100,000 years. That's assuming that subhuman species are not self aware.

You are so enamored of contradictions that you see them when they are not there and deny them when they are there.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...&postcount=321

Coyne uses the term approvingly at 1:35, as he hilariously tries to "convince" the audience to "accept" hard determinism.