Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ayn Rand's Immortal Indestructible Robot

Rate this topic


Godless Capitalist

Recommended Posts

Talk about missing the point.

OK, if you really want me to... :)

In my first post on this thread, I wrote:

God protect us from those who discuss philosophy without being interested in life. It is that kind of people who gave us Kant and the rest of his ilk.

This is more than just a comment on the idea of our hypothetical robot discussing philosophy as one of its "pastimes." It is also a remark on this thread itself.

A proper philosophy is a guide for man on how to live his life on this Earth, in this reality. Indestructible robots are not, and cannot possibly be, a part of this reality--nor can immortal supermen.

Get the point now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Per the section I cited above from OPAR, Miss Rand used the example of the idestructible robot to illustrate the point that the concept 'value' has at its root the concept 'life.' An indestructible being could not have values since any action such a being were to take would have no impact on its existence or non-existence

What I am getting at, though, is the many actions that humans take that seemingly have no impact on their existence or non-existence. What is the connection between recreational pursuits, or even career choices, and the ultimate goal of preserving one's existence?

One interesting observation that partly answers Vern's question: I think part of why I like kayaking is that it is potentially dangerous. Having to exert mental and physical effort to avoid direct danger reminds me of the value of my life and makes me "feel alive." On the other hand, it seems a little irrational to deliberately seek danger to one's life, even in a controlled situation (that is, I only run rapids where I am reasonably sure the danger is minimal; I don't go over Niagara Falls)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have suggested an activity but neglected to give a reason for that activity.  Why would the immortal entity be curious or feel anything for that matter about becoming a scientist.  You claim that it would give it something intersting to do, yet don't mention why it would find this activity intersting.

What I'm saying here is that there is nothing about the nature of this robot/entity  that makes one course of action better than any other.

Thus your answer boils down to this:

What will it do?  Perhaps it will do X.  Why?  Because it feels like it.  Why does it feel like it?  It just does.

Good points; they get at what I am trying to understand. Why are human beings curious or feel anything about being scientists? Why do they find scientific research interesting? After all, a lot of scientific research is undertaken purely for curiosity. It may eventually have some practical value to someone, but not directly for the person doing the research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, if you really want me to... :)

In my first post on this thread, I wrote:

This is more than just a comment on the idea of our hypothetical robot discussing philosophy as one of its "pastimes." It is also a remark on this thread itself.

A proper philosophy is a guide for man on how to live his life on this Earth, in this reality. Indestructible robots are not, and cannot possibly be, a part of this reality--nor can immortal supermen.

Get the point now?

The robot example came from Ayn Rand. She thought it was acceptable to discuss such a robot's values or lack thereof; why can't we?

Anyway, I am willing to drop the robot and stick to human beings. (see my posts above)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the connection between recreational pursuits, or even career choices, and the ultimate goal of preserving one's existence?

Every action that a living being takes impinges on its life either positively or negatively--there is no neutral ground upon which life can stand, or as Dr. Peikoff aptly put it, "every is implies an ought." See Dr. Peikoff's monumental essay, "Fact and Value".

By the way, it would be a good exercise in philosophical integration if you keep in mind the fundamental alternative of life or death while reading that essay because it is there behind every point that he is making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at, though, is the many actions that humans take that seemingly have no impact on their existence or non-existence. What is the connection between recreational pursuits, or even career choices, and the ultimate goal of preserving one's existence?

One interesting observation that partly answers Vern's question: I think part of why I like kayaking is that it is potentially dangerous. Having to exert mental and physical effort to avoid direct danger reminds me of the value of my life and makes me "feel alive." On the other hand, it seems a little irrational to deliberately seek danger to one's life, even in a controlled situation (that is, I only run rapids where I am reasonably sure the danger is minimal; I don't go over Niagara Falls)

But you did not address the concept of positive stress vs. negative stress. While many recreational actions we take seem to have no impact, I offered why I think they do have an impact on our life and life span. My opinion is that EVERY decision and action we take has an impact on our life and life span.

In your partial answer to my question, I would suspect that answer plays only a minor role in your choosing that specific activity as recreation. For instance, if one simply wanted to exert mental and physical effort in the face of danger so one could feel alive, one could simply plan hiking trips or runs through really bad neighborhoods. :) There's something more specific and more important about why you like KAYAKING. It is that reason that kayaking provides positive stressors for you which act to counterbalance some of the negative stress which in turn affects your life, or your existence.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Vern; I never got back to answering your point about stress. One thing I wonder about that explanation is that maybe a better approach would be to try to reduce the stress in one's everyday life. I actually know people who enjoy their work so much that they feel no need for vacations or other recreation.

The problem with running through bad neighborhoods is the lack of control over the amount of danger, which would make that an irrational activity.

I'm not sure what you mean by positive stressors.

edited to add: In any case, thanks for addressing the issue that I was trying to get at: the connection between recreational activities and the ultimate value of one's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by positive stressors.

For the purposes of my explanation, I'll use this general definition of stress: the natural reaction in one's body and mind to changes or demands regarding one's values.

There are positive and negative forms of stress, largely determined by the perceived and actual outcome of that change or demand on the individual. Buying a new house, enjoying one's job, getting a promotion, having a baby, navigating a river while kayaking, or taking a vacation are all possible examples of positive stressors. They introduce changes and demands on us that we see as a good thing towards achieving our values and goals. Negative stressors may include losing one's job, the death of a spouse or family member, having your new house be a "money pit", getting cut off in traffic, etc. etc. They cause unwanted problems and hurdles for us in achieving our values and goals. Our mental and physiological reactions to these events significantly shape our overall physical and mental health.

Positive stressors tend to lead towards satisfaction, motivation, energy, exhilaration, etc. Negative stressors tend to lead towards depression, distrust, ulcers, substance abuses, etc.

Generally, the healthy person who copes well with stress finds ways to balance the negative stress by finding ways to create postive stress. Thus, pretty much everything we do is going to put a plus or a minus in the column of our life.

I hope this helps explain my position.

Edit:

The problem with running through bad neighborhoods is the lack of control over the amount of danger, which would make that an irrational activity.

The point was, there are different activities that different people enjoy for the same reasons you mentioned, the "feeling alive" reason. That it why I think there are other reasons more pertinent to why YOU specifically choose kayaking as YOUR activity to make you feel alive, as opposed to cliff diving, bungie jumping or (insert extreme sport here that you don't like to do).

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that recreation is, by definition, a break from the activities one engages in for survival (which is why golfing is recreation to some - and a means of survival to others). And remember that such a break takes time AWAY from that means of survival - of creating futher prosperity or wealth etc for ones self - of BENEFITING one's life - now and in the future. So WHEN you decide to engage in ANY activity - recreational or not - it DOES have a QUITE SPECIFIC impact on your entire life.

That many don't treat it as such reveals a fault in them - not a fault in those recognize this fact and act accordingly. So just as you have a reason for pursing your specific means of survival, you better have an equally valid reason for pursuing a break from that means as well. Otherwise you are wasting your life because you are throwing away the time that you are alive and what you can do to maximize that life and the enjoyment of it - not just in the range of the moment, but over the entire SPAN.

Put simply, you must be as rational when it comes to your recreation as you are when it comes to all the other parts of your life. If you are not, then you are pursuing anti-life principles. You are pursuing death (which, btw, is something an indestructible/immortal entity simply cannot do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap, thanks for the answer. I engage in the recreational activities I do because I enjoy them. I enjoy kayaking for the physical and mental challenge, the scenery, the company of friends, etc. If I were to spend all of my waking hours working I would be more wealthy, but I would certainly not be happier. The time I do spend working provides me an adequate income for my needs, so not working more does not affect my survival. There would be no benefit to me in spending more time working instead of kayaking. Does that make sense or did I miss your point?

Should it set its goals by whatever is pleasureable?  Why not by whatever is painful?  Can you justify a difference for this robot?  What makes you think it would even have a pleasure-pain mechanism?  Where would it get it?  Certainly not through natural selection by survival of the fitest; it has no concern with survival since it is immortal nor any need to be fit since it is indestructible.  Could a pleasure-pain mechanism be programmed?  Then its goals are not its own, but rather the goals of the programmer.

The human pleasure-pain mechanism does not automatically signal what the correct goals should be. For example, we are programed by evolution to find sweet and fatty foods pleasurable. This was valuable thousands of years ago when such foods were rare and a source of needed nutrients, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to live entirely on ice cream today. The robot could similarly have a pleasure-pain mechanism programmed, but it would still have to use reason to decide how to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to see the connection between life and value is to make a "what for" chain.

Q. Why do you kayak?

A. I like it.

Q. Why do you like it?

A. I feel in control and on top of the world.

Q. Why do you want to feel in control and on top of the world?

A. It's better than feeling helpless.

Q. What's so bad about feeling helpless?

A. If there was nothing I could accomplish in life, I'd feel miserable.

Q. What's so bad about feeling miserable?

A. Are you kidding? Who wants to live that way? If life was nothing but helpless misery, I'd kill myself.

Now try making a "what for" chain for the robot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to see the connection between life and value is to make a "what for" chain.

Thanks; that helps me see that one of the things I like about kayaking is the sense of accomplishment I get.

Now try making a "what for" chain for the robot.

OK, here goes:

Q. Why do you kayak?

A. I like it.

Q. Why do you like it?

A. I feel in control and on top of the world.

Q. Why do you want to feel in control and on top of the world?

A. It's better than feeling helpless.

Q. What's so bad about feeling helpless?

A. If there was nothing I could accomplish in life, I'd feel miserable.

Q. What's so bad about feeling miserable?

A. Are you kidding? Who wants to live that way? If life was nothing but helpless misery, I'd be in real trouble because I can't kill myself. I would have to spend eternity in misery.

On a related note, perhaps the robot would want to spend some of its time and effort on benevolent acts, just as we might. This would not be altruism of course since it would be unable to sacrifice itself. For those who don't like the robot example, think about a wealthy businessman who decides to spent some of his wealth supporting Objectivism, or science, or whatever he decides is a good cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that I am in fact an indestructible robot. B)

I'm not sure I get the value in discussing the potential values of an immortal being but...

I think it is interesting that in many sci-fi, fantasy and other fantastical books, movies and even anime, immortable beings are usually portrayed as bored, lacking in any lasting values or morals and seeking death. I only add this to the discussion to say that there seems to be a fundamental, if unconscious understanding in the authors of such works that immortality removes the need of values from life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that in many sci-fi, fantasy and other fantastical books, movies and even anime, immortable beings are usually portrayed as bored, lacking in any lasting values or morals and seeking death. 

True, but the same is also true of some humans who can easily buy whatever they need or want and have nothing to struggle for. The extreme case would be someone who inherits millions and becomes an indolent playboy. What I am getting at is that most people in modern societies do not really have to struggle very hard just to survive. They turn for challenges to things like kayaking that don't directly connect to their survival. (Note btw that until about 100 yrs ago it would have been considered bizarre to paddle rapids just for fun. Just working and staying alive was challenging enough for most people.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the same is also true of some humans who can easily buy whatever they need or want and have nothing to struggle for. The extreme case would be someone who inherits millions and becomes an indolent playboy.  ...

The difference here between the immortal indestructible robot and the playboy is that morality still applies to the playboy, and he is immoral in his idleness and boredom. This is because he still has needs in order to survive, whereas the robot does not. The playboy's ability to easily fulfill his needs is not the same as the robot's lack of needs. Were the playboy stranded on an island by himself, his money would not save him. Were the robot stranded, it would be merely a change of scenery.

Dr. Peikoff discusses playboys in OPAR (pg. 301-302), noting that even those who already have a substantial fortune (whether earned, won or inherited) must still work in order to be virtuous.

d_s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be slightly off topic but this is something I have wondered.

Would an invincible being be doing an immoral act if killing a human did not cause harm to him either physicaly or physcologicily?

no more immoral than a lion eating a village of people. Morality does not apply to the lion because it does not make rational choices. Morality does not apply to the superbeing because there is no ulitimate value it needs to keep (namely, it's own life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[A "what for" chain for the indestructible robot}

OK, here goes:

Q. Why do you kayak?

A. I like it.

Q. Why do you like it?

A. I feel in control and on top of the world.

Q. Why do you want to feel in control and on top of the world?

A. It's better than feeling helpless.

Q. What's so bad about feeling helpless?

A. If there was nothing I could accomplish in life, I'd feel miserable.

Q. You've got a pleasure / pain mechanism? What for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to assume that the robot is not a programmed, deterministic being. But being immortal and invincible, it wouldn't have any use for volition.

Because all choices eventually can be traced back to "live or die?"

ALL choices.

This is the entire basis for Rand's morality, so it's rather disturbing that so many have missed it.

This is why all choices are OBJECTIVE and not subjective. Some people may fail in their introspections enough to say "I go kayaking because I feel like it," but more rational beings can DEFINE their feelings and the causes of their feelings. And there are rational reasons for MY feelings, thank you very much.

I'm sorry if I'm being mean here, but I am just so sick of hearing people say "just because" when asked WHY they do things. Actually, I have hated that attitude since I was a small child (8, I think). Even then, I saw that there are reasons for what we do and feel.

The idea that the robot would want to "feel in control of itself and the world" is projecting a human need on something that has no such need. Why do humans need to feel in control of themselves and the world? Simple: because we can die. A being that cannot die would have NO SUCH NEED.

Pleasure and pain are indicators of what is good or bad for our survival. The robot would not have them because its survival is NEVER in question. The only way the robot would do anything at all is if its pleasure/pain mechanism were tied to something OTHER than its survival (like if it were programmed to protect humans), which is clearly not what Rand meant in the example. The robot would have NO self interest, so it would have no basis for ethics. It would have no REASON to do, or not to do, ANYTHING.

Does that make it clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality does not apply to the superbeing because there is no ulitimate value it needs to keep (namely, it's own life).

By that reasoning suicide bombing is moral because the suicide bomber values killing other people more than he values his own life. Just because a rational being (ie capable of using reason not necessarily actually rational all the time) does not value its own life, that makes it OK for it to violate my rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty clear, yes; thanks you.

I am going to assume that the robot is not a programmed, deterministic being. But being immortal and invincible, it wouldn't have any use for volition.

Because all choices eventually can be traced back to "live or die?"

ALL choices.

This is the entire basis for Rand's morality, so it's rather disturbing that so many have missed it.

This is why all choices are OBJECTIVE and not subjective. Some people may fail in their introspections enough to say "I go kayaking because I feel like it," but more rational beings can DEFINE their feelings and the causes of their feelings. And there are rational reasons for MY feelings, thank you very much.

Well, then please pick a recreational interest you enjoy and trace it back to "live or die?". I really would like to see your train of thought. I am not claiming that "because I feel like it" is a valid reason for liking kayaking; I am just having trouble seeing the connection to the ultimate value of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that reasoning suicide bombing is moral because the suicide bomber values killing other people more than he values his own life.

This is a fallacous analogy based on a failure to grasp the concept 'suicide bomber'.

Also, how do you do you go from an example that concludes X is amoral to an example that concludes Y is moral - and then conclude that they are analogous in the first place? Amoral and moral are opposites. As such, they cannot be considered analogous at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robots only do what the program tells them to do. A robot cannot be "interested" in anything because all it does is follow bits of code. If the code tells it to step over the edge of the roof on the tall building, then that's what it would do, without question, even if it was running a simulation of what would happen to it at the same moment it was told to jump.

You can see it in newer SF movies that this concept is totally ignored (which makes me roll my eyes and be bored for the rest of the movie) in "Terminator", in "I, robot" in "My 200 years", etc. Computers there suddenly "realize" something they weren't programmed to follow. In "Terminator" the computer suddenly becomes conscious for no reason at all. In "My 200 years" a robot becomes conscious because it jumped through the window and its cables got mixed up. In "I, robot" a computer suddenly sees the contradictions in the 3 laws and supposes that it should protect humans from themselves, even though it wasn't programmed to detect any contradictions.

The computer will always blindly follow instructions. Otherwise, I couldn't make this post appear on a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...