Re: The Problem with Atheism
Reply #348 –
This is in answer to your question, ersi, about how I gauged Frenzie's answer to my question…and posted before I'd read much beyond it. (Obviously, a computer that "spoke" English would have no problem with this formulation, since it's grammatical — even if it didn't have access to (memory of!) this thread; but then it would, were it conscious in the same sense we are, have questions…)
My estimation of his answer is stuck on how I'm meant to take his first salvo: "My psychology wouldn't be the same if I hadn't watched Ducktales."
(Yes, I did some research… Did I miss a crucial post? Or was DuckTales mentioned out of the blue, so to speak?)
Was he being a wag? (Someone always capable of making a joke while making a serious point, leaving the import and intent of such ambiguous…) Or merely reporting that he knows and accepts that he's just the dog's tail being wagged?
Short answer: I don't know…
(gotta go back and continue reading, if I'm going to say anything interesting — that isn't just talking to myself…)
——————————————————————————
I don't believe "short-circuit" is a good choice of words to describe indecisiveness or simple refusal to make a decision because not making a decision is a decision in itself and not a malfunction.
I have to disagree: "Short-circuit" is indeed the ideal term! Logically, not making a decision is a failure of programming — perhaps even a Halt-And-Catch-Fire op-code! Either God or Evolution has asked that the whole mechanism be checked, for correct functioning.
As I mentioned earlier: We'd only likely admit that machines were ethically our equals if they could and would be able to reject their programming — that is, not follow "the rules"…
Which brings us to the consideration of "higher rules."