06 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour 'self' and your programming are one in the same. You are the summation of all your programming,
Surely you mean the programming and the programming alone will be responsible ,...you just said it's the programming that directs my actions not me. If my programming is faulty it's not my fault is it? "
for your programming is the compilation and distillation of your desires, interests, motivations and
so forth. That your programming is faulty is a testament to the fact that your 'self' is faulty, hence
the need for punishment.
Nemesio
06 Jun 07
So you tell my computer. Just because the programming changes and subtly interacts with it experiences and enivironment etc etc in an incredibly complex way DOES NOT mean that the outcome is any less predetermined than a less complex process. You are the one who believes in determinism , so you explain it. It's not my job to figure out all the fine details , all I am doing is making a logical extr ...[text shortened]... Would such a computer be able to predict with 100% certainty what my computer would do?I am afraid that you failed to answer my question. You said that your programming made you do
,[/b]
what you did. That is, your programming assessed what was the best course of action and strove to
enact it. And, your programming is such that, given an identical state of affairs and identical mindset,
you would do exactly the same thing again.
So, I would ask again: When confronted with the opportunity to shock or not shock the individuals,
you shocked them because of the conclusions of your programming indicated that this was the best
course of action to take. What factors led to the drawing of this conclusion?
Originally posted by knightmeister
YOU are one who believes that all actions are determined , yes?
It is so very tiring that your memory banks are such that you will repeatedly ascribe to me a position
that I have denied several times. I believe some occurrences are indeed random and because of
uncertainty, initial physical conditions can lead to increasing chaotic irregularities. So, whereas
dominos are so large that chaos does not affect them, smaller things (like wind currents) can have
unpredictable effects over periods of time.
As this pertains to your thought process, I am personally unsure whether in ambivalent situations --
situations in which an individual does not have a strong feeling for this or that -- whether the choices
do in fact have a degree of randomization. However, the more passionately one feels about a situation
the less obvious the randomizing is. So, my decision this past late morning to have lunch instead of
breakfast may have been one that I might have selected differently given the same initial conditions
because I really didn't care whether I had lunch or breakfast. My decision to rescue a drowning child,
however, would be unaffected by such randomization.
And, either way, the awareness that you have programming, and how your programming deliberates,
and the implications of enacting the programming, and so forth, is what makes you -- the summation
of your programming -- responsible for the foreseeable results of your actions.
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE----
I am afraid that you failed to answer my question. You said that your programming made you do
what you did. That is, your programming assessed what was the best course of action and strove to
enact it. And, your programming is such that, given an identical state of affairs and identical mindset,
you would do exactly the same thing again.
So, I wou ...[text shortened]... ion
of your programming -- responsible for the foreseeable results of your actions.
Nemesio
So, I would ask again: When confronted with the opportunity to shock or not shock the individuals,
you shocked them because of the conclusions of your programming indicated that this was the best
course of action to take. What factors led to the drawing of this conclusion?
RESPONSE---
Computer-- " When I was confronted with the opportunity to shock or not shock my system went into a slight crash. I understood the options and what they meant but my logic chip went to war with the rest of my programming. My logic chip kept nagging at me with the basic facts of my system. It told me that there was no way that I was able to make a real choice between a) shocking and b) not shocking because my actions were predetermined and I have no logical way to influence the outcome towards a) and away from b) or vice versa. a) or b) would happen either via determinism or via my random chip. I was not able to influence the outcome either way. I had no way to argue against my logic chip because all the evidence was that I am a programmed machine. I therefore logically knew that the experience I was having (of being confronted with two real and possible courses of action on which I had to choose) must have been illusionary because logically I cannot make real choices because I am a machine. Sending the shock was the only logical , inevitable outcome and b) couild only have ever happened if my random chip had influenced my programming towards b).
I could not get past this. I knew logically that only one outcome was possible a) or b) and that whatever I did would make no difference because I have nothing in me that is not programming. I cannot rise above my own programming. So how can two real and possible outcomes exist? But! My random chip could account for this , but then I have just as little control over my random chip as my programming. I logically knew that being confronted with what felt like a decision that I had to make between a) and b) had to logically be a bug in my program so I dismissed it as illusionary. Can you dispute the logic of this? I would really like you to be a bit more logical here , your logic seems so woolly to me. My logic chip is a bit ruthless I'm afraid , it doesn't understand your concepts of should and awareness and self. It's got this awful habit of just looking at things dispassionately and objectively like an emotionless scientist. It keeps telling me that machines can't make real choices they just follow determined selection processes for which they are not responsible. Machines are not in control of themselves"
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE---
Your 'self' and your programming are one in the same. You are the summation of all your programming,
for your programming is the compilation and distillation of your desires, interests, motivations and
so forth. That your programming is faulty is a testament to the fact that your 'self' is faulty, hence
the need for punishment.
Nemesio
Your 'self' and your programming are one in the same. You are the summation of all your programming,
for your programming is the compilation and distillation of your desires, interests, motivations and
so forth. That your programming is faulty is a testament to the fact that your 'self' is faulty, hence
the need for punishment.
Nemesio
RESPONSE---
Computer " Surely you mean that my programming is faulty and this is a testament to the fact that my programming is faulty? If your PC at home goes wrong do you think that it has a 'self' that is faulty? There is nothing more to me than programming , therefore it is more rational and accurate to say that a programmed machine did something which other humans subjectively believe is wrong and that the programming needs to be looked at. I don't understand the need for punishment."
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE---
I am afraid that you failed to answer my question. You said that your programming made you do
what you did. That is, your programming assessed what was the best course of action and strove to
enact it. And, your programming is such that, given an identical state of affairs and identical mindset,
you would do exactly the same thing again.
So, I wou ...[text shortened]... ion
of your programming -- responsible for the foreseeable results of your actions.
Nemesio
And, either way, the awareness that you have programming, and how your programming deliberates,
and the implications of enacting the programming, and so forth, is what makes you -- the summation
of your programming -- responsible for the foreseeable results of your actions.
Nemesio
RESPONSE--
KNIGHTY-" And this is where your position is logically self contradictory. You have yet to explain what it is that gives the computer any control whatsoever over it's actions. How is the computer supposed to override it's programming via a choice or an act of will or some kind? You keep saying all this about awareness but you have yet to show evidentially or logically by what means the computer has to do something or make a selection that is unprogrammed or random. The results of it's actions may be foreseeable but unless it has control to influence the outcome what's the point of awareness? A machine has NO CHOICE but to enact it's programming , that's what programmed machines do , they can do NOTHING else . And yet you talk as if this computer can choose to either enact it's programming or not enact it. Explain yourself!! "
07 Jun 07
Smash the computer, it's clearly crazy. Charge The Dr with creating such a dangerous machine and throw him in jail. Then call up God and put him on trail. In the event that God cannot be reached, hold a trail in his abcence and throw the whole universe in jail. If that doesn't work then ignore it and hope it goes away.
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by Jake EllisonWho let the court jester off his leash again!!?
Smash the computer, it's clearly crazy. Charge The Dr with creating such a dangerous machine and throw him in jail. Then call up God and put him on trail. In the event that God cannot be reached, hold a trail in his abcence and throw the whole universe in jail. If that doesn't work then ignore it and hope it goes away.
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are not answering the question. I do not dispute that your programming
When I was confronted with the opportunity to shock or not shock my system went into a slight crash. I understood the options and what they meant but my logic chip went to war with the rest of my programming. My logic chip kept nagging at me with the basic facts of my system. It told me that there was no way that I was able to make a real choice betwe ...[text shortened]... on processes for which they are not responsible. Machines are not in control of themselves"
deterministically led you to the course of actions that you took. You,
similarly, do not dispute that other courses of action were present but
for the limitations of your programming logically impossible.
My question is specifically: When confronted with the situation to shock
an individual unbidden -- to cause that person unnecessary suffering --
your programming went through calculations -- assessing and deliberating
then acting. What in your programming caused you to assess the situation
such that you took the course of action that you did?
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy comment was in response to your confusion about 'self.' I fully consent
Surely you mean that my programming is faulty and this is a testament to the fact that my programming is faulty? If your PC at home goes wrong do you think that it has a 'self' that is faulty? There is nothing more to me than programming , therefore it is more rational and accurate to say that a programmed machine did something which other humans subje ...[text shortened]... and that the programming needs to be looked at. I don't understand the need for punishment."
that your self is the summation of your programming, where that programming
comprises your memories, desires, interests, motivations, values, and
so on. My PC at home does not have any of these things. It would be
helpful if you would stop comparing yourself to things that lack 'selves'
since this is the very thing that makes you culpable as opposed to a
cloud or worm.
That your programming determined that causing unnecessary suffering was
a good thing to pursue is a reflection of the bad character of your programming --
that is, your 'self's' bad character.
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAsserting that it is self-contradictory is different than demonstrating it.
And this is where your position is logically self contradictory. You have yet to explain what it is that gives the computer any control whatsoever over it's actions. How is the computer supposed to override it's programming via a choice or an act of will or some kind? You keep saying all this about awareness but you have yet to show evidentially or log mputer can choose to either enact it's programming or not enact it. Explain yourself!! "
Self awareness, the knowledge of one's own self awareness and other
people's self awareness is what makes you a moral agent. The reason
it makes you a moral agent is because you are consequently aware that
suffering exists and from personal experience that is good to avoid it and
consequently good to avoid causing it unnecessarily.
This knowledge -- which clouds and worms lack -- is part of the programming
which informs your decisions. Since it is logically compelling for you to
avoid suffering and to frown upon those who cause your suffering, so too
is it logical for you to avoid causing suffering and to abet those striving
to do the same.
If the impetus to avoid causing suffering is so weak in your programming,
then it is demonstrable that your programming is severely flawed and
needs attention. Since you are inseparable from your programming --
indeed, you are the summation of it -- then it is equivalent to say that
you -- your self -- needs attention. That attention logically takes the
form of punishment (to protect others from your programming, your self)
and rehabilitation (to address the flaws of your programming).
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have not said this. Your reading comprehension chip needs repair as
And yet you talk as if this computer can choose to either enact it's programming or not enact it. Explain yourself!! "
well.
One of the twofold purposes of your punishment is to reshape the programming
such that it values the notion of not causing unnecessary suffering.
Consequently, when presented with a similar situation the programming
will lead you to the conclusion that you ought not to cause the shock rather
than repeating and further harming other people.
Nemesio
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE--
You are not answering the question. I do not dispute that your programming
deterministically led you to the course of actions that you took. You,
similarly, do not dispute that other courses of action were present but
for the limitations of your programming logically impossible.
My question is specifically: When confronted with the situation to sho ...[text shortened]... you to assess the situation
such that you took the course of action that you did?
Nemesio
What in your programming caused you to assess the situation
such that you took the course of action that you did?
RESPONSE--
Computer- "Looking at my logs what happened was that I could not compute the logical contradiction between the two courses of action being present but also being logically impossible. It was logically impossible that two courses of action should be present . My logic chip had a fit , it shut down some systems (I suppose you might call it confusion or apathy) . The shock went out. It had to go out. It could not be prevented because for it to be prevented I would have to have control over myself.
It's logically impossible for me to be in a scenario which says to me " this can happen or the other thing can happen and it's going to be down to you which happens" This cannot compute , there has to be some error. My logic chip reasoned that I must be in some hybrid , holographic fantasy illusion and decided to send the shock out to test the hypothesis. Apparently you humans really do feel that "one thing can happen or another thing can happen and it's really down to your choices as to what happens" .You humans really do believe that you shape your own destiny. However , I know I am just a machine so this cannot be logically true fo me. "