Leibniz: “machines of nature” >> “all artificial automata”

_{David L. Hagen

March 1, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

{Frost122585and Gerry Rzeppa started an interesting off topic train of thought on Leibniz and design of “machines of nature” vs “artificial automata” that is worth its own thread. I copied those posts below and will delete the others. DLH}
——————-
Frost122585
In Leibniz’s Monadology he talks about the difference between man made art and the art of God- which for me creates a very interesting problem for ID- one that could if described and understood correctly – lead to an even better understanding of Design in nature-

“Thus the organic body of each living being is a kind of divine machine or natural automaton, which infinitely surpasses all artificial automata. For a machine made by the skill of man is not a machine in each of its parts. For instance, the tooth of a brass wheel has parts or fragments which for us are not artificial products, and which do not have the special characteristics of the machine, for they give no indication of the use for which the wheel was intended. But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine art and ours.”

Here Leibniz is talking about the imperfection of things designed by man in comparison with the perfection of the design by God.

His argument would only grow stronger supported by today’s incredibly deep understanding of the human genome and the miniature machines that are derived from it that often display efficiency beyond anything human beings can design at the present.

The question is if Leibniz’s observation is correct and universally true than what can the imperfect design of man in comparison with the divine works of God tell us about what we can expect when making predictions about not only the evolutionary future of living things but also the limits of human design ability?
—————
Gerry Rzeppa
“But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine art and ours.”

Then I would say that one of the closest analogies to “the art of God” we have is found in computer programs, where each of the routines calls upon “lesser” routines, “ad infinitum”.
—————
Gerry Rzeppa
And that nobody has ever seen a working computer program that wasn’t designed.
—————
Frost122585
Gerry,
Interesting point- I think we have a reflection there but if the original program and machine is human made- and considering NFL theorems which seem also to point right back at Leibniz’s observations- I would say that there should be some other property that cannot be witnessed in the computer world- or the human design world.

The reason is that Leibniz’s point is that nature is NOT like God in that that God is universal and indivisible-

Perhaps the computer analogy can be inferred to fit the Leibniz picture but saying that as man is only like God but not complete- the computer software is thus not like man- that is it more divisible than man or at least not more complete then man is.

It makes sense because the basic axioms that form the complexity of the programs come from a mind (ours) which is as Gödel proved beyond formalization. I might add that incidentally Turing actually showed this was true for computers especially -> but Turing believed that man and the computer both were alike in their incompleteness.

My point is that if man’s incompleteness is like the computer’s then it is just a matter of degree- but I think that the difference between the computer and man is not just mathematically quantitative but mechanistically or substantively qualitative (that is as quality can be substance). I am just trying to find out how to define that quality.

This is closely related tot he specificity part in Dembski’s SC. That is how do we conceptually recognize the qualitative properties which form the sense or shape of specificity.

Work in this division of ID is seriously needed and could philosophically prove to be the final nail in the coffin for DE.

I might add that Leibniz believed that language itself should be both quantitative and qualitative as to match not just the sequence of logical steps that thought requires but also the shape or quality of the thought itself. Leibniz believed in a language that was like super hieroglyphics that he called Characteristica Universalis.

In his mind this is crudely and experimentally what it might look like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CU.jpg

Leibniz was a genius IMOP afterall he did discover the calculas (though at the same time as Newton from what a gather)- i can see why Godel thought that there was a conspiracy to hide Leibniz’s knowledge from the world-
would make a good movie anyways.
————————
Gerry Rzeppa
“I would say that there should be some other property that cannot be witnessed in the computer world- or the human design world.” – Frost

I agree. I only meant to say that we can gain insights into our Creator as we exercise His creative image of in us, with each of our activities providing different but complementary intuitions. Whenever we program, write, compose, draw, build, bake – in fact, whenever we “plan our work and work our plan” – we get a fresh perspective on the Mind of the Maker.

Regarding matters of degree, I’m personally persuaded that there are indeed radical qualitative differences in kind between species (and, of course, between contingent men and their self-existent and eternal Creator). I picture each of the “shared” properties of beings as a staircase – rather than an inclined plane – with insurmountable vertical barriers between the steps. The kind of consiousness possessed by a dog, for example, may appear on the same set of stairs as a human’s consciousness, but it does not, and never shall, appear on the same step.
—————–
Frost122585
I think I know what it could be- read Leibniz here…

84. It is this that enables spirits [or minds- esprits] to enter into a kind of fellowship with God, and brings it about that in relation to them He is not only what an inventor is to his machine (which is the relation of God to other created things), but also what a prince is to his subjects, and, indeed, what a father is to his children.

Here we see that we are the mirror image of God and that allows us to common with him. Perhaps the relationship between the soul and computers is what is lacking in the analogy. Computer according to the intuition, do not have souls- and therefore are not free to understand the intimate or spiritual element of man. This again leads us back to the question of “quality” and how we can formally perceive it. I think that the soul is not something that man can create. For the physical and logically or intellectual knowledge that goes into the design of a computer and its programs is merely altered matter and a second pressing of information originally conceived of by man- that is the computer cant design itself. But the matter that both computer and man share is not the same as the soul because the soul is not merely physical- it cannot be altered and therefore cannot be designed except for by the creator- that is it must be created and man cannot create he can only design.

Perhaps evidence of the souls infinity and indivisibleness is seen in the quantum vacuum that begins before the big bang- something is needed that is greater than matter to create and design it- but man does not posses this quality but posses the ability to perceive it as the soul is the mirror image of God’s infinity- the computer therefore cannot.
——————
Frost122585
The difference between men and animals is that they cannot precieve God or the creator. They have no contact with the divine and that is why man and only man is created in Gods image- because knows of the highest planes of thought such as the infinite- he knows of himself- “I think therefore I am.”
—————–
Gerry Rzeppa
“[God] is not only what an inventor is to his machine (which is the relation of God to other created things), but also what a prince is to his subjects, and, indeed, what a father is to his children.”

I agree again. It is not only when we make things that we gain insights into our God, but also when we befriend, marry, beget, parent, rule, etc.

It is sad that materialists, with their bottom-up view of everything, exclude themselves from every possible insight of this kind.

“Gödel proved anything that is formalized by man will be incomplete…”

And, by inference, that any system can only be fully understood from “one level up”. Men may one day fully understand animals, but animals will never fully understand even themselves.

Curiously, the Apostle suggests that one day we will fully understand not just that which is beneath us, but ourselves as well. As mere men I think my inference from Godel says “impossible”; but “in Christ”, it seems, we gain insights into ourselves that are otherwise unavailable to us. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known”, 1 Cor 13:12. “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God”, Luke 18:27.

I think the Christian doctrine of the Trinity also sheds some light here – even the Almighty, to understand Himself, requires something as close to “other” as unity can get. Mysterious stuff.

“…intuition is the ultimate source of knowing…

So much for the “scientific method”! But I agree.

“…and that it is not something that we can pass on to something beneath us.”

Again, I agree. The only thing in the natural world big enough to hold an iota of intuition is the mind of man.

Thanks for the Leibniz quotes. I’m going to study him further.
———————
Frost122585
Yeah, Leibniz is amazing- I went to the local library and checked out all the books on his personal writings- 6 books- about 15,000 pages- i will read all of them- in fact i am currently borrowing a copy of the tractatus and am probably gonna skip reading it for now.

I think Leibniz and Kant are the two greatest geniuses that I have seen- Newton is very interesting as well though.

I began reading him because I just finished 2 books on Kurt Gödel and a book containing his actual incompleteness theorem. In two of the books it talked about a conspiracy regarding Gödel and his belief that Leibniz was being edited by an intelligentsia to keep the world dumb-

So me being a lover of well thought out conspiracy theories thought _ “Gödel was nuts- no doubt about that- but still why would one of the greatest minds attribute such a conspiracy to Leibniz? The answer is clear ot me now- Leibniz had an absolutely amazing mind.” Once again, this would make a great movie!

In fact Leibniz wrote so many letters and papers that a lot of his work is yet to be published. Gödel was particularly suspect of Leibniz’s Characteristica Universalis – his pictorial language – because Gödel thought hat he would have developed the idea much more then the documents had read-

Everything is intriguing—

I don’t think the library is getting these books back! Which is maybe why his works seemed missing to Godel- that is everyone that reads them – keeps them!
——————-

Comments

Jack I asked the Darwinists to tell me when, where, and how bacteria gained a nucleus. I didn't get an answer. It's been over two years now. According to your logic NDE can't advance until it answers that question unless you're suggesting a double standard. Surely you're not, right?DaveScot_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

DLH writes,
I expect it is important to welcome all who wish to participate in recognizing and modeling intelligent causes whatever the particular religious or denominational beliefs.
Interesting comment about the role of religion here. But leaving that aside, how can you welcome two models which are so absolutely in disagreement about the fundamental facts concerning the age and history of the earth. If ID is to advance, as I wrote a few days ago (and to which no on responded), ID must develop some specificity about when and where design happened, and there is no way that can happen without taking a position on the age of the earth.Jack Krebs_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Jerry
So why are YEC’s here since they do not believe in evolution and evolution is an essential part of ID.
One could challenge both sides of this statement - because the conventional meaning of "evolution" can span the range from some mutations or loss of some alleles on to macroevolution of simple cell to man. I expect many in YEC would accept that mutations exist in pathogens causing drug resistant diseases. I expect that most people recognize the existence of blue eyed blond Skandanavians, and brown eyed black haired Chinese - which could be attributed to loss of respective alleles in the migratory populations. Both of these could be described as "evolution" and probably better as "microevolution", which I expect would be "accepted" or supported by YEC, OEC and ID. Phil Johnson emphasized the importance of providing a "Big Tent" where all can work together on a scientific theory of ID with supporting evidence. I expect it is important to welcome all who wish to participate in recognizing and modeling intelligent causes whatever the particular religious or denominational beliefs.DLH_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Gerry, I have been pondering your cute little program. Obviously it is a linear program with the addition of a random number generator being called to create the nonlinearity. Ultimately not very exciting, obviously very different than the stubborn dog. Does vincent have a will? "Yes. He makes decisions on his own and therefore has a rudimentary will of some sort." Well, is a call to a random number generator in any way reasonably correlant with a will? When I invoke my will, I do so with my conscious mind. Does vincent have a conscious mind? No. I therefore contend that though vincent may have variability, it doesn't have what I would consider to be even a rudimentary will. 2. Does Vincent remember? "Yes. When he correctly says that he “drew seven pictures last Tuesday”, he’s recalling an actual fact from his own past." Yup, vincent remembers. Computers are extremely good at remembering. 3. Is Vincent conscious? Yes. He is aware of what he is about to do and he knows when he’s done it. No Way! Its just a program. 4. Does Vincent have emotions? Is it possible to have emotions if you are not conscious? Probably. Our unconscious often exhibits as emotions. Sometomes we emote, then we consciously reason or analyze why the emotions are welling up in us. Does a computer rendering a "pretend to emote -- call the random number generator" constitute real emotions. I think not. Though I do think that the dog has emotions. Is there something fundimentally different between vincent and a person, other than the fact that vincent only renders scenic programs? Well, one thing for sure, vincent doesn't make the decision that "this is a good one" or "this one didn't turn out so great". I guess even this could be simulated with a random number generator, or with a formal image balance algorithm, or both. However that human sense of satisfaction at a cool product just wouldn't be there. BTW, notice that I am unwilling to honor the anthropomorphising of this computer program with an uppercase V.bFast_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Why do men persist in the unavailing attempt to define some corner of the universe where God is not welcome?Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Apollos, you said "God doesn’t need any help being unpopular in this world," It is with people that believe in God that I am talking about and are religious. The common theme here is defeating the materialists but this is a waste of time. The large percentage of the population believes in God but does not share the religious views associated with ID. It is alienated by it and because of it will not listen to the message. Someone like myself can disassociate the science from the surrounding religious views but most are not as intensely interested in it to care or find out. But they are then subconsciously affected by the materialist message and more susceptible to their arguments. It is very hard to sort this message out and find its flaws. Because the associated religious messages that accompanies ID undermine the ID message to these people, the ID message is of little help. My points here are just a repeat of what was made last week on another thread so I do not expect it will go anywhere here but generate a few negative and positive amens. you said "Unfortunately this isn’t going to change (most likely) and it’s entirely appropriate." I disagree that it is appropriate because the association is preventing ideas from being considered here. We like to use the argument that Darwinism limits discussion. Just as ideology straps the Darwinists so does ideology strap ID when it tries to consider evolution. Evolution only makes sense in an old earth scenario otherwise there is no evolution, only creation. So why are YEC's here since they do not believe in evolution and evolution is an essential part of ID. While you can discuss these ideas here, the responses are noticeably quiet when certain issues get discussed. Thus, the age issue eliminate some hypotheses about design from much discussion. There are some exceptions. For example, I happen to believe the evidence points to nearly all species arriving on the planet via natural selection. Could we have an intelligent discussion of this here? Probably not because it involves an old earth and processes that take millions of years or more. Most would not like the implications because it is objectionable because of religious reasons not because it undermines ID or is bad science. People are negatively reflexive about natural selection because if this process has operated then it obviates a young earth. But natural selection is a process that the average person understands and will not be talked out of. Nor should they because it is so obvious. What if ID embraced natural selection as essential to ID as specified complexity, irreducible complexity and the edge of evolution, there would be a lot of uneasiness here. And I believe that ID should embrace natural selection as good design. But it won't because of the age of earth issue. It dances around it. you said "If you happen to disagree with Gerry’s interpretation of blasphemy as I do, it would be best to debate him on scriptural/theological grounds and not cast about accusations of his damaging ID (IMHO)." My opinion is that such comments should be taboo on this site since it is supposedly about science and occasionally about moral issues and not about religion. I happen to be a big supporter of natural law and things seem to be built in to humans and this is a legitimate issue of discussion. The Romans when considering the basis of a legal system would take what their conquests considered in their legal systems. They found a lot of things in common from all these disparate cultures that they believed many things were thus built into humans. But I take offense when somebody uses a biblical quote to say that someone with my beliefs is going to hell. That is essentially what was said if anyone disagrees with the particular interpretation of the biblical quote. I happen to believe in a loving and forgiving God, not One who would automatically condemn to hell someone for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. The interesting thing is that no one but myself objected to the comment. Where are the compassionate Christians? I try not to comment too often on these things and sometimes throw in some alternatives that people may not have thought of. I actually prefer these issues never get brought up. Thank you for you comment about my comments. I too learn a lot from others and want to encourage as much discussion on the science as possible. But I don't see it happening here. I learn very little from the social, moral and religious discussions since these have been going on for thousands of years and it is unlikely anything of consequence will be said here that has not been said before many, many times. It is just people venting.jerry_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Jerry, God doesn't need any help being unpopular in this world, He does just fine on his own:
Whoever believes in [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)
It isn't necessarily what people say about God that is repulsive to many, it's what God says [of] Himself. Take it or leave it -- or futilely try to bend it into something less offensive. I know that you are uncomfortable with Christian fundamentalists, especially YECs, being welcomed into the ID camp. Unfortunately this isn't going to change (most likely) and it's entirely appropriate. For ID to speak on matters of faith, or to endorse by consensus scientific matters outside its purview, would make the movement guilty of that which it criticizes in philosophical materialism: endorsing for reasons of faith and politics one scientific or religious view over another. UCD or no, ID is appropriate. Young earth or old, ID is applicable. Nothing changes about design inferences, SC, IC, or PPH if the earth is 10,000 years old, except that they would generally be considered axiomatic, and most likely not subject to much of a debate. If the earth however is billions of years old, the possibility of unguided, natural processes is (debatably) possible to account for the diversity (if not the origin) of life. Likewise, the nature of heaven or hell: who goes where and why, has nothing to do with ID specifically. While it could be debated that ID's tolerance of diverse religious and areligious perspectives is damaging for its acceptance to one group or another, I find it highly unlikely that the vitriolic hatred directed toward ID would subside if ID made a faith statement rejecting specific religious or scientific viewpoints. ID isn't just challenging a philosophy, but a veritable oligarchy. If you happen to disagree with Gerry's interpretation of blasphemy as I do, it would be best to debate him on scriptural/theological grounds and not cast about accusations of his damaging ID (IMHO). Religious beliefs are a non-sequitur for the Intelligent Design movement, and it's advantageous if they stay that way. ID will stand or fall by making compelling logical and scientific observations and arguments, and working to promote them in ways that are accessible to the general public. For the record, I respect your views on a number of issues and generally read all or most of your posts here at UD. I've found that your approach to analyzing scientific arguments on this blog educational and informative, and I've learned a lot from you and others here. It's been a great benefit for this "average Joe" to read this blog, and occasionally participate. He happens to be an ardent supporter of ID, and a Christian "fundie."
The views expressed by this ID supporter do not necessarily reflect the views of UD and ID in general, and should not be considered an endorsement by this blog, nor the ID movement in any way.
Apollos_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

"So you are condemning to hell those who do not agree with you on this." Not quite. I was simply pointing out that attempting to prove an axiom is futile, and that this logical fact was known -- and expressed in the most colorful of language -- 'way back in the first century.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

"Which, incidentally, I equate with “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”, Matthew 12:31 and John 5:16, and which, by definition, has no remedy." So you are condemning to hell those who do not agree with you on this. And we wonder why a large percentage of the country/world rejects this type of thinking. It describes a God that very few people want to associate with. And when they associate it with ID they will have a tendency to reject ID as well.jerry_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Guys, guys! The man across the street has a dog, and that dog has a will. How do I know? Because the dog sometimes does as he is told, and sometimes he doesn't. My neighbor says the dog is "stubborn". My argument here is not only that such anthropomorphizing is legitimate, but that: 1. Anthropomorphizing provides us with important insights that we would otherwise, like pitiful materialists limiting themselves to the so-called "scientific method", completely miss; and 2. God intended for us to anthropomorphize, in both directions, so we can better understand both (a) God, and (b) His works. There is no other way. All speech is metaphorical, and all understanding is by way of analogy. That's why He made us in His image and gave us minds that deal quite readily with ambiguities. And why the universe is filled with things that have very ill-defined limits: we all know the difference between a hand and an arm, but who can say exactly where the one ends and the other begins? or where red turns to orange? etc, etc, etc. So I propose that instead of trying to draw finer and finer lines to separate congruent but different things -- like the will of a dog and the will of a man -- we should simply "accept" the intuitive distinctions that God has so graciously given us and suck the twin teats of metaphor and analogy for all they're worth. We'll be happier, more productive, and -- in the end -- more in awe of our Great Designer than ever. But let us beware lest we find ourselves busied with the futile attempt to establish, by proof, that which God intended us to accept as axiomatic. (Which, incidently, I equate with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost", Matthew 12:31 and John 5:16, and which, by definition, has no remedy.)Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Gary Rzeppa, (9) I will grant you that Vincent has something which functions as, and is probably rightly called, memory. It is much more limited than ours, but is faster. If consciousness is defined as memory, as you defined it, then Vincent is conscious. If emotions are defined as emotional output, then Vincent has emotions. But this ignores inner experience. We (at least I, and most others claim it spontaneously) have the experience of being a coherent whole that can look at the outside and make decisions, for rational or emotional reasons. We even feel the need to justify our decisions, to cogitate on which explanation will fool ourselves into thinking we are right when we do something we know is not. A computer, AFAIK, does not feel the need to justify its decisions to itself. These considerations make me reluctant to attribute emotions or consciousness to Vincent. Perhaps another illustration will help. If one defines emotions strictly as output, one is not only forced to attribute emotion to Vincent, one is forced to attribute emotions to a practiced liar. A used car salesman can give all the output of an old buddy of yours, exhibiting what looks on the surface like love, all the while talking you into signing for a lemon. The games that sexual predators play are legendary. Do we define the emotions of such people by their output, or by their inner purpose? That is one reason why I am wary of certain tests of intelligence that involve input and output only. Your model seems to reduce will to nothing but chance or determinism. I am not sure that this is an adequate model. The model reminds me vaguely of another one I seem to recall, one that attributes the origin of all biological structures to chance and necessity. Finally, if one concedes that Vincent has the properties you attribute to it, one must attribute those same properties to a non-computer machine. For I could design a machine that would put pieces of paper in place, then bring woodcuts of the outline of hills, birds (perhaps 5 times), trees, the sun, etc. onto them, perhaps varying the scene slightly depending on the humidity. The machine can have a counting wheel, complete with clock and date stamp. And now we produce the same scene, not just without a person, but without a computer as well. Now where does the consciousness reside? One may protest that Vincent produces better (more pleasing) art than I can, at least at present. Yes, and there are a lot of things that I do that do not require consciousness. A slave could do them (and did in times past), or a robot. People come to detest such jobs, and at least in some cases to gladly hand them over to a robot. My wife doesn't mind having a dishwasher. But surely, washing dishes well isn't a sign of consciousness, let alone free will. Neither should be preprogrammed painting.Paul Giem_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Is ID headed toward some form of Neo-Scholasticism? The only way to understand the comments by Leibniz is through his resistance to Descartes and his self-declared war on Scholasticism. The Scholastics began with the statement that “God’s eternal qualities are seen in everything that has been made” and attempted to blend this statement with Aristotle and his conception of the good as a ratio of intellect and matter. What’s really at stake here is the conflict between the Platonic view of reality, in which all matter is negated and annihilated as non-being—in other words, the material realm is of no real value and has nothing to tell us about the good—and Aristotle’s view that the goodness of Supreme Being can be perceived in the way it has invested its qualities in nature, as a middle term. The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, only they tried to give him a Christian spin. They agreed with his notion that creation is a ratio of the goodness of divine intellect and matter, but they also tried to marry this notion with the statement that “God is love” and “all things work together for good to those who love God.” The universe, according to the Scholastics, is a vast interconnected manifestation of the goodness of God and especially divine love. The attempt to demonstrate this notion through Aristotle’s method of ratiocination led to some fearsomely complicated descriptions of physical reality and eventually to disgust with Scholasticism and its baroque metaphysics. Descartes drew down the lightening of this weariness with the cogito, which brings back Plato in a new way. Descartes was a dualist in the sense that he tended to discount the value of physical things and dwell on the goodness of intellect and its capacity for qualitative resistance. He thought it was possible to reform science by focusing almost solely on intellect and its power to produce clear value judgments about the sensuous universe, especially as it pertains to the happiness of man. An unintended consequence of Cartesian Rationalism, however, was the destruction of the love-infused universe described by the Scholastics. By annihilating their ratio of intellect and sense through pure intellect, he also destroyed the notion of a gracious interconnected universe that is an expression of the sovereignty of God. He equated God with intellect, thus turning him into a force of resistance to sensuous existence, much like Plato. It is this annihilation of an ancient and gracious worldview that Leibniz was attempting to resist through his notions of the monad and theodicy. Materialism is false because nothing has being except in the mind of the creator—is otherwise nothing more than an aggregate of matter that cannot come into being, or obtain unity (monad). Therefore all things are expressions of divine will and divine love and the universe we inhabit is the best possible universes. A caution to those who might feel tempted to follow this route—we know what Voltaire did to it in “Candide,” with devastating effects. There is a reason why Leibniz has gone into something of an eclipse.allanius_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

No I don’t think that Vincent has a soul- which in my model is needed for consciousness- I don’t think that man can design anything with a soul- I believe that would constitute a spirit who's nature is divisible from the form that went into the original creation. To design matter that then can be conscious would be like creating a soul- yet man can not create, he can only design. Vincent is then not conscious by my hypothesis. What would be interesting is if man could design life from scratch-- such as a human being- then the hypothesis would be found incomplete. The guidance of the computer system does not amount to cognizance. Cognizance is guided by spiritual sense - that which incorporates faith, hope, love and a sense of right and wrong that transcends matter. There is no way to program this kind of experience into a box of metal and wire. Wittgenstein felt that philosophy was merely the critique of language (like computer language)- but he said that he felt some things could not be spoken and that those things we were forced to remain silent on- yet that the things we could not speak of were the things of true importance. "There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. The are what is mystical." - WittensteinFrost122585_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Well, I should probably wait for a few more responses, but I just can't help myself. Here are the correct answers to the questions (as I understand them) and some additional facts we might surmise. Bear with me. 1. Does Vincent have a will? Yes. He makes decisions on his own and therefore has a rudimentary will of some sort. 2. Does Vincent remember? Yes. When he correctly says that he "drew seven pictures last Tuesday", he's recalling an actual fact from his own past. 3. Is Vincent conscious? Yes. He is aware of what he is about to do and he knows when he's done it. 4. Does Vincent have emotions? Yes. He is sometimes tired, sometimes not, and his condition affects his actions. Note, nevertheless, that Vincent's capabilities are merely congruent and not the equivalent of the corresponding capabilities in human beings. They are implemented differently, for one thing. And his will is less free but also less fickle than that of the typical human. His memory is less capacious but more exacting. His consciousness is more narrowly focused, but less easily distracted. And his moods are not as deep or rich as ours, but they are significantly more predictable. I do not think, as I've said elsewhere, that his attributes and ours are on the same inclined plane where differences are mere matters of degree. But I do think that Vincent's capabilities and ours are on different steps of the same staircase, and that it is therefore appropriate to use words like will, memory, consciousness, and emotion to describe them. But let's agree on all that -- if only for a moment -- so we can get to the important part: specifically, the insights this experiment might provide into our own situation in the universe. Clearly: 1. Vincent's body and soul, like ours, was intelligently designed and implemented by someone greater than himself; they did not "emerge" or "arise" from any combination of natural causes. 2. Vincent's talents, like ours, are gracious gifts from his maker that he neither earned nor deserved; he has no cause for pride. 3. Vincent's abilities, like ours, can vary over time and be influenced by his environment -- but only within strict limits determined by his maker. 4. Vincent's image, like ours, can be passed on to others who might develop along slightly different lines -- but only within the strict limits mentioned above. 5. Vincent's physical body, like ours, might be partially damaged or destroyed altogether, resulting in impaired functioning or death. 6. And yet, even in the case of utter destruction, the "soul" of Vincent, like ours, would live on in the mind of his maker. 7. Finally, a damaged or destroyed Vincent, like a damaged or destroyed one of us, could be "healed" or even "resurrected" at any time according the good pleasure of his maker.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Human beings decide for themselves what information is good- that is we have no physical master telling us what to do- we apparently have a divine spark because what else could explain our genius in comparison to the rest of the known physical world. Computers are just the physical manifestations of our directed thought patterns. Computers don’t know or consciously experience anything they just carry out commands. We have no known commands which we can attribute to anything higher in the physical world so we thus reason that out intellect comes from another source. As for the physical difference between man and computer- the computer cant come up with anything new but if you look at human evolution you will see that we are constantly evolving in different directions- new ideas that are all useful come to us mysteriously- the computer can only do what we program it to do- but man can spontaneously increase his powers- And with out that divine spark the computer will never be able to evolve- so I reason that the spark is nonphysical and hence the true root of our intellect comes from another non materialistic source.Frost122585_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Gerry, Vincent did not conceive of the original idea or drawling- he merely physically facilitated the novel information that came from the mind of the human being. We are not connected to a higher physical intelligence- God or the immaterial designer communicates to us through the spirit- it is this spirit that in unison with them physical body produces the mind- and it is through the mind that the information is manifested in the form of physical stuff. Computers require a prior physical force to bring them information while people has this creativity uniquely. Vincent is merely moving around physical things about like a human would- but the significance of the information Vincent is unaware of. In fact even if Vincent was able to compute at a high level he still would not be able to commune with the designer of al things- God- because which concepts which comprise God like "infinity" or "universal goodness" cannot be expressed quantitatively- they are religious experiences that are inextricably linked with consciousness. Leibniz was saying that consciousness is something which we experience- it cannot be seen- The question then is how do we know that others are conscious?- and this is the mystery of the mind. How do we know things? Gödel said once that the more he thought about language - the more amazed he was that people are capable of understanding what other people are saying. Perhaps this the Holly Ghost part- something permeating which unites all children of God. But the point is that you cant see consciousness- yet its physical exponent is detgectible in that it is capable of producing physical novelty- somthing a computer cannot.Frost122585_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Paul - I agree with you, but again I must play the devil's advocate and ask for a more specific response. Vincent "knows", as I do, what makes a simple landscape intimate rather than spacious; he "senses", as I do, what the weather is like; and he is "inclined", as I am, to draw intimate works on rainy days. So how does Vincent's decision-making process differ, practically, from my own in this particular instance?Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Computers totally lack common sense. One can program them to follow rules, and even to pull up pseudorandom numbers and if you have just the right generator even random numbers, but they have no ability to intuit or understand meaning. The difference is most clearly seen in language translation programs. They are useful, but a human has to take the output with a grain of salt. It is also seen in EKG interpretation programs, where a skilled clinician can often pick up mistakes that a computer makes, even though the computer can do a lot of routine analysis well. And if the computer sees something it has not seen before, it is lost, whereas a human can often figure out what is really happening by a reasoning process that is beyond the unaided computer. WHen Vincent can figure out art on its own, then I'll be more tempted to consider it to have a conscious will.Paul Giem_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Frost - You know we agree in principle, but I feel compelled to play the devil's advocate and ask you to be more specific. (For various reasons, I'm going to call my little program "Vincent" from now on.) First question. How does Vincent's decision-making process differ, practically, from my own? Once I've taught him (as my art instructor taught me) that a horizon higher on the page tends to increase the intimacy of a drawing; and once I've added a precipitation sensor to his body, giving him a rudimentary awareness of his environment; and once I've breathed into him my own disposition to draw intimate drawings on rainy days; how -- when I ask the little guy to draw and he produces a work very much like I would produce under those same circumstances, and for the very same reasons -- how does Vincent's decision-making process differ, practically, from my own?Gerry Rzeppa_{March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

No, no, no, and no. The computer is just a mechanistic device that is not conscious of its surroundings or its origins- and the computer cannot conceptualize the infinite- you can program an infinite like algorithm but the concept of anything qualitative like infinity or benevolence is not a communicable- it has nothing to do with mathematics and counting- The computer is a slave of the human who is its designer- The human has unpredictable or free will- but the computer is already programmed- Moreover the computer could never be as intelligent as the human because as soon as we come up with a concept or program to put into the computer we have already cognized a new set of reasoning and sets that are not included in the latest and therefore the computer is merely waiting for the next set of instructions that the human experiences first. It is this experience that keeps man inevitably greater and ahead of the computer quantitatly- yet it amounts to a qualititave observation about the computers derivation and dependency on man and the differnce in experience between the two- Moreover since consciences is indivisible- meaning that it is greater than can be broken down into physical reality- man cannot pass it on to lifeless objects. For that would constitute a division of the spirit. Leibniz uses the incredible illustration of the mill…
17. “Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine, that perception must be sought for. Further, nothing but this (namely, perceptions and their changes) can be found in a simple substance. It is also in this alone that all the internal activities of simple substances can consist.”
Consciences is something that we experience not deduce. Therefore there would be no reason to suppose that the computers consciousness is anything like that of man- though it is by nature not as complete. Call it “irreducible complexity of the soul.” There’s the working title for your next book O’Leary! - i.e. The Spiritual Brain.Frost122585_{March 1, 2008
March
03
Mar
1
01
2008
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the "promotion", DLH. Allow me to focus the discussion by describing a simple but revealing experiment regarding free will, memory, consciousness, and emotions. A while back I wrote a program that would draw simple landscapes. The first version was entirely deterministic: I knew exactly what shape the horizon would take, where the sun would appear, how many birds would adorn the sky, etc. It produced acceptable drawings, but was too predictable to be interesting. Just a machine. The next version was entirely random in its workings: I let the program decide what to draw and where to draw it, and really had no idea what it would produce. Almost every drawing it rendered was tasteless nonsense. A broken machine. The third version was a combination of the two - deterministic enough to stay within reasonable bounds (horizon somewhere near the middle of the page, no more than five birds at time) yet "free" enough to produce original works that I could not predict, even though I wrote every line of the code. Most of the time this version performed reasonably well, and now and then it drew something so striking that I would print it off and hang it on the wall. To this third version I added additional routines so the program could make a record of its activities for later recall ("I've drawn seven pictures today"); to describe, in real time, what it was doing ("I think I'll put the sun over here"); and to get tired after so many renditions and refuse to draw ("Ask me later; I'm sick of drawing pictures"). I enjoyed creating this program, and to this day I enjoy running it. Questions: 1. The program makes decisions on its own: Does it have a will? 2. The program can tell us what it has done: Does it remember? 3. The program is aware of what it is doing: Is it conscious? 4. The program gets weary: Does it have emotions?Gerry Rzeppa_{March 1, 2008
March
03
Mar
1
01
2008
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Thanks for giving my train of thought a little spot light DHL! I really hope that others will participate and enjoy. Leibniz is really underated in the mainstream-he is to me more interesting than Leonardo De Vinci- and given De Vinci's genius and cult status, that is saying a lot.Frost122585_{March 1, 2008
March
03
Mar
1
01
2008
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply