tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116009142539254711..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Why Lewis Wouldn't Buy the Computer Argument From Peter S. Williams' "Why Naturalists Should Mind about Physicalism, and Vice VersaVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73744710420388705502014-09-29T19:26:40.113-07:002014-09-29T19:26:40.113-07:00The theistic OS: a bug, not a feature.The theistic OS: <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/09/can-machine-understand-in-discussion.html" rel="nofollow">a bug, not a feature.</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19296414331886461092014-09-29T08:52:55.307-07:002014-09-29T08:52:55.307-07:00childish 'atheist' trying to play Gotcha! ...<b>childish 'atheist' trying to play Gotcha!</b> "<i>Can an omnipotent God create a computer that has beliefs and knowledge?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Kevin Harris:</b> "<i>I'm not sure a being created by God that has beliefs and knowledge can be rightly called a "computer". At least not what we think of when we think of computers.</i>"<br /><br /><b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i>Steven Carr's question (from October 2006) is playing fast and loose with both terminology and with concepts. The omnipotent God can of course create a being with thoughts and beliefs (and has obviously done so). Mr. Carr has a long history on this and other websites of not taking the OP seriously, and has rarely contributed anything actually intended to advance the discussion.</i>"<br /><br />Indeed, Mr Carr was "playing fast and loose with both terminology and with concepts" and "has rarely contributed anything actually intended to advance the discussion". But, for those who insist against all reason upon running the dodgy atheistic OS, that's a feature, not a bug.<br /><br />What he was attempting to do is the moral-and-intellectual equivalent of "arguing" thusly: "<i>Can 'God' create a square circle? No? I thought not. Thus, 'God' is not 'omnipotent'; thus, 'God' does not exist</i>" -- which, as anyone can see, is really shitty "reasoning". But, you know, that's par for the course for 'atheists'.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63595323879061772492014-09-27T13:23:21.643-07:002014-09-27T13:23:21.643-07:00^ I sometimes wonder whether one function of a nor...^ I sometimes wonder whether one function of a normally functioning human brain is to <i>limit</i>, as in dampening, the interaction of the immaterial person to whom the brain belings with the physical world in which he finds himself. <br /><br />Cinsider <i>idiot savants</i>: there is something wrong with their brains -- that is, "wrong" when normal brains are taken as being how brains ought to be -- and yet they can do (narrowly focused) things that normal people wish they could do.<br /><br />What if the brain acts, in part, as a "muffler", as a limiter upon us. What if, were it not for this hypothetical limiting effect, we could all be like unlimited/broad <i>idiot savants</i>, with the amazing abilities of any number of diverse <i>idiot savants</i>? Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54891636017584646092014-09-27T12:37:26.423-07:002014-09-27T12:37:26.423-07:00"A man's Rational thinking is just so muc..."A man's Rational thinking is <i>just so much</i> of his share in eternal Reason as the state of his brain allows to become operative: it represents, so to speak, the bargain struck or the frontier fixed between Reason and Nature at that particular point... In the same way the voice of the Announcer is just so much of a human voice as the receiving set lets through. Of course it varies with the state of the receiving set, and deteriorates as the set wears out and vanishes altogether if I throw a brick at it. It is conditioned by the apparatus but not originated by it. If it were -- if we knew that there was no human being at the microphone -- we should not attend to the news."<br /><br /><i>Miracles</i>, ch. 6Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11791142047971535962014-09-26T14:47:16.081-07:002014-09-26T14:47:16.081-07:00I do have to give Mr. Carr credit for putting fort...I do have to give Mr. Carr credit for putting forth a new "explanation" for the Resurrection, over on his blog six months ago this year. At least, it was new to me. He hypothesized that the Apostles mistakenly identified James as the risen Jesus, apparently from some sort of family resemblance. Allow me to throw this newest lame attempt to deny the historical reality of the Resurrection into the same pile as "the women went to the wrong tomb", or "Jesus was a space alien", etc., theories.<br /><br />Pathetic.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1738127020540748012014-09-26T14:39:40.249-07:002014-09-26T14:39:40.249-07:00Steven Carr's question (from October 2006) is ...Steven Carr's question (from October 2006) is playing fast and loose with both terminology and with concepts. The omnipotent God can of course create a being with thoughts and beliefs (and has obviously done so). Mr. Carr has a long history on this and other websites of not taking the OP seriously, and has rarely contributed anything actually intended to advance the discussion.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24476207365014094722014-09-26T14:02:48.573-07:002014-09-26T14:02:48.573-07:00Can an omnipotent God create a computer that has b...<i>Can an omnipotent God create a computer that has beliefs and knowledge?</i><br /><br />I'm not sure a being created by God that has beliefs and knowledge can be rightly called a "computer". At least not what we think of when we think of computers.Kevin Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422067437134051672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17714120678724329252014-09-26T12:45:52.991-07:002014-09-26T12:45:52.991-07:00I've alluded to this before, but it bears repe...I've alluded to this before, but it bears repeating here. <br /><br />Near the end of one of my favorite movies, <b><i>Around the World Under the Sea</i></b>, one of two characters, who have spent practically the entire movie playing an extended game of chess, accuses the other of cheating because he's been caught using a computer to help him decide his moves. The accused party (played by David McCallum) defends his actions, saying (in words to this effect) "I designed that computer. I built it. And I programmed it. Whatever that machine does is nothing more than an extension of my mind."<br /><br />Kinda says it all.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10621657230942380052014-09-26T09:35:30.475-07:002014-09-26T09:35:30.475-07:00"And no more needs to be added, except the no..."<i>And no more needs to be added, except the notice that no more needs to be added.</i>"<br /><br />Still, more *can* be said.<br /><br />"<i>The reason he would not be impressed is that while computers do the "ratio" part of rational inference very well, ...</i>"<br /><br />As the Peter Williams quote puts it, "<i>A computer can <b>mimic</b> certain aspects of what scholastic philosophy dubbed "the third act of the mind" [29] ; that is "reasoning, calculating." ...</i>" And even putting it this can be misunderstood to (wrongly) imply that it is the computer <i>program</i> which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>", when, in fact, it was the computer <i>programmer</i> who did these things.<br /><br />If one has a well-calibrated balance and a number of identical ball-bearings, and one drops two ball-bearings into the pan on one side of the scale and drops three ball-bearings into the pan on the other side of the scale, is it *really* the <i>scale</i> which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>" concerning with plate holds more ball-bearings (whether by "more" one means either numerical count or weight)?<br /><br />If one has rigged the scale into some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption, such that a further sequence of events is initiated or not, depending on which plate holds more ball-bearing, is it *really* the <i>scale</i> which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>" concerning whether to initiate the sequence of events?<br /><br />If one adds further elaboration to the Rube Goldberg contraption, such that a precise "count" (*) of the difference in number of ball-bearings between the two plates can be "calculated" (*), and then one of a number of possible further sequences of events is initiated depending on the count, is it *really* the <i>scale</i> (or the total contraption) which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>" concerning which sequence of events to initiate and when?<br /><br />If one shrinks the scale and the contraption and the ball-bearing down to a size such that they cannot be seen with the naked eye, is it *really* the <i>scale</i> (or the total contraption) which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>" concerning which sequence of events to initiate and when?<br /><br />If one speeds up the mechanical process of the contraption "calculating" the difference in the count of ball-bearings and its subsequent "decision" of which sequences of events to initiate, such that the entire process of "calculation" and "decision" can be accomplished in one tick of Planck time, is it *really* the <i>scale</i> (or the total contraption) which engages in "<i>reasoning, calculating</i>" concerning which sequence of events to initiate and when?<br /><br />The answer is, of course, "No; it is the <i>builder</i> of the contraption who made these calculations and decisions." The same applies to a computer program: <i>it is the programmer(s), including those who wrote the OS and the underlying firmware, who made whatever "calculations" and "decisions" people incorrectly attribute to the program.</i><br /><br />(*) the scare-quotes are because the contraption cannot actually either count or compute or chooseIlíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2910371163235385902014-09-25T15:38:00.837-07:002014-09-25T15:38:00.837-07:00@Don
Wow, I really enjoyed your obstructing tacti...@Don<br /><br />Wow, I really enjoyed your obstructing tactic for such ignorant behavior. Well done. <br /><br />But in other news, proofs like this for an immaterial intellect is highly interesting:<br />http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43151/ross-immateriality.pdf<br /><br />The whole book of "Thought and World: The Hidden Necessities" really deserves a read, but oh well, time and priorities and all.Daniel Joachimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10176530490479375672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40343252669435674692014-09-25T09:42:06.008-07:002014-09-25T09:42:06.008-07:00@Ilíon:
Exactly.
And no more needs to be added, ...@Ilíon:<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />And no more needs to be added, except the notice that no more needs to be added.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24207776148236542062014-09-25T09:33:26.235-07:002014-09-25T09:33:26.235-07:00"The reason he would not be impressed is that..."<i>The reason he would not be impressed is that while computers do the "ratio" part of rational inference very well ...</i>"<br /><br />No, they don't. They don't even do it, much less do it very well.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160210146734691082006-10-07T01:35:00.000-07:002006-10-07T01:35:00.000-07:00Williams wrote :-As Aristotle argued, "Seeing is a...Williams wrote :-<BR/><BR/>As Aristotle argued, "Seeing is an act of the eye, but understanding is not an act of our brain. It is an act of our mind – an immaterial element in our makeup that may be related to, but is distinct from, the brain as a material organ." <BR/><BR/>This is not an argument. <BR/><BR/>It is a an assertion of fact, backed up with no arguments or evidence.<BR/><BR/>It is worthless.<BR/><BR/>So what was the point of Williams writing it?<BR/><BR/>All it does is claim that there is some relation between the brain and the mind.<BR/><BR/>How does that help Williams' case?<BR/><BR/>Even the strictest of materialsts would claim that the laws of chess are immaterial but have some relation to the hardware that implements a chess-playing program.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160163087800089042006-10-06T12:31:00.000-07:002006-10-06T12:31:00.000-07:00Interestingly enough, I had a friend a number of y...Interestingly enough, I had a friend a number of years ago who thought that some of the problems facing artificial intelligence could be resolved by importing Thomistic philosophy, and actually was writing programs on that premise. He died at 36 17 years ago. <BR/><BR/>I thought Aristotle (and Lewis) were explaining what knowing and inferring is. How does brain science explain "understanding" or "intellectus" as described here? Or do they just explain it away. <BR/><BR/>And the hard problem of consciousness is still pretty hard.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/harder.htmVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160158831036512372006-10-06T11:20:00.000-07:002006-10-06T11:20:00.000-07:00Don still cannot say why the prejudices of a Greek...Don still cannot say why the prejudices of a Greek philosopher who had not the faintest idea of how the brain worked, should still be quoted today as relevant to how the brain may or may not perform certain tasks.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Perhaps it would be easier if Don simply showed how this immaterial mind performed tasks of logical reasoning without using any material to do so.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't Don know that scientists simply laugh at essays which try to prove their point by having paragraphs simply saying 'Einstein says...'<BR/><BR/>What is the evidence for what Einstein says? That is the important question.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160134777154385542006-10-06T04:39:00.000-07:002006-10-06T04:39:00.000-07:00Quoting Aristotle as an authority on how the mind/...Quoting Aristotle as an authority on how the mind/brain interface works is simply an admission that Christian philosophers cannot be bothered to learn any modern science.<BR/><BR/>Williams quotes Aristotle as saying 'It is an act of our mind – an immaterial element in our makeup that may be related to, but is distinct from, the brain as a material organ.'<BR/><BR/>Where is Aristotle's evidence for this assertion?<BR/><BR/>Scientists would laugh themselves silly at claims that we should take the un-evidence assertions of Aristotle as a proof that the brain cannot understand things.<BR/><BR/>Just as modern chemists would laugh themselves silly at claims that all materials can be broken down into the elements of air, earth , fire and water.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160113653501629862006-10-05T22:47:00.000-07:002006-10-05T22:47:00.000-07:00Williams writes 'As Aristotle argued, "Seeing is a...Williams writes 'As Aristotle argued, "Seeing is an act of the eye, but understanding is not an act of our brain. It is an act of our mind – an immaterial element in our makeup that may be related to, but is distinct from, the brain as a material organ." '<BR/><BR/>What is the point of thiq quote? Some Greek who was entirely ignorant of the workinhgs of the brain claimed there was an immaterial element inside our skulls?<BR/><BR/>So what?<BR/><BR/>Probably Aristotle thought our brains were made of air, earth , fire and water. <BR/><BR/>You have to admire the way Christians are not embarrassed to admit in public that they still regard the knowledge of 2,500 years ago as the latest word on 21st-century science of the brain.<BR/><BR/>You wouldn't find many atheists nowadaya quoting Aristotle as an authority on neuropsychology.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1160113303097233292006-10-05T22:41:00.000-07:002006-10-05T22:41:00.000-07:00Williams - 'Thus I do not think a computer can hav...Williams - 'Thus I do not think a computer can have beliefs, or, consequently, knowledge.'<BR/><BR/>Can an omnipotent God create a computer that has beliefs and knowledge?<BR/><BR/>If yes, then being purely a material thing is no barrier to having beliefs of knowledge.<BR/><BR/>If no, then what is there about silicon as opposed to carbon that prevents even an omnipotent God from creating a conscious computer?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com