Ayn Rand's Immortal Indestructible Robot

Ethics
21

There is an urgency attached to mortality that would not be present in something or someone immortal.  That is why, in my opinion, value is derived from life and mortality.  Even the smallest things we do for enjoyment or for adding value to our life, while it may be inconsequential to the act of physically surviving, is something that holds value as we may never have the opportunity to do it again.

I would surmise an immortal would have no sense of urgency or drive to accomplish anything.  What would it matter?  Forever is a long time to try to keep one’s self entertained and fulfilled.

Why are shopping sprees exciting?  You only have a short time to grab as much as you can.  Now imagine a shopping spree that never ends, no time limit.

Imagine a bungie jump where the bungie never stops and theres no ground to rush up to you, just a space that goes on forever.

It is the finite that makes things interesting, that makes things valuable and worth keeping or trading.

My humble ramblings…

VES

Superman could still desire Lois Lane and the pursuit of a Romantic relationship, even if he knew he would live forever; the alternative then would be an eternity with a value or an eternity without it. I think it is apparent that some values are not dismissed merely by the absence of a ticking clock; Superman could still enjoy eating hamburgers because they taste good and provide him with comfort, even if he didn’t need them to live. That taste buds are ostensibly the product of natural selection and a guide to “survival” is not what is essential or relevant; that it brings him comfort and satisfaction, in terms of a pleasurable taste and texture, is, even if “survival” in the absolute sense is not a concern for him.

Whatever the basis for our desires, they can be destructive or beneficial; thus our passions must be tempered by a rational mind in order to determine what actions will truly be to our benefit. Thus, it is the capacity for happiness that determines the potentiality for the pursuit of values, not simply death. Mortality may provide urgency to those values, but they are not the source of values.

Even if one could scientifically extrapolate the link between mortality, natural selection, and desires, such a discovery would be a physiological one, and philosophically inconsequential.

To paraphrase Andrew Lewis (from when he was on the Radio): " I don’t even need to know why I want to eat the candy bar, I can simply look at the result that the consumption of the candy bar has on my life and make the decision."

Thus, if a being is rational, it must take into account all other facets of its nature and come to a determination as to what it must pursue for its long term well-being. If the robot has been programmed with feelings, or lets say it has the brain of a man but it is still immortal and invincible, it can still pursue values, so long as it has the capacity for happiness. Its means can only be determined by introspection and scientific study, but that it can is irrefutable if one is adhering to Rand’s definition.

After all, what would be the purpose of living for a rational being if it did not have the capacity for happiness? Such an animal would be the Houyhnhnms of Gulliver’s Travels, pursuing reason for reasons sake.

In short: It is the possibility of a positive and a negative in any action, and the faculty of volition that necessitates purposeful action, that gives rise to values; not simply “death”.

22

Superman could still desire Lois Lane and the pursuit of a Romantic relationship, even if he knew he would live forever; the alternative then would be an eternity with a value or an eternity without it.

I probably should have just stayed out of this discussion. I find the Superman example about as useful as the popular kid’s argument, “who would win a battle between Superman and Batman?” One can come to any conclusion they desire and really not have to back it up. However, in the interests of fairness, I will give you the opportunity to explain how you come to the conclusion that Superman’s psychology would be essentially unaffected (within the context of this topic) by immortality. Please differentiate any factual evidence from your opinion.

That is why I attempted to use somewhat “real world” examples (although there really isn’t any), rather than Superman or the Robot.

Whatever the basis for our desires, they can be destructive or beneficial; thus our passions must be tempered by a rational mind in order to determine what actions will truly be to our benefit.

My point is, I disagree that they can be destructive or beneficial to someone with nothing to gain or nothing to lose, or in other words, immortal. The fundamental dissagreement we have is the effects of immortality on the psychology of the immortal being. I see that "ticking clock’ as having far more significance on human psychology than you do. Having been in situations where the distinct possibility of death was ever present, it has given my that much more appreciation for the time I do have to live, fleeting though it may be.

In short: It is the possibility of a positive and a negative in any action, and the faculty of volition that necessitates purposeful action, that gives rise to values; not simply “death”.

I contend there would be no positive or negative results to an immortal. I contend that an immortal would have such a radically different comprehension of time that they wouldn’t look at something as succeeding or failing, but rather it happens now or it eventually happens later, I got time. Whereas to us, time is frequently our most precious resource, time would have no bearing on an immortal. I contend that life and death are what give rise to values as we have an alloted amount of time to seek these values out. I would even venture to say that time is the one common element in virtually every rational use of that “faculty of volition”, if not in absolutely every use.

VES

23

How does kayaking help maintain my life?

If you learned how to kayak properly, it probably keeps you alive as you whisk down the river. :slight_smile:

Why do you like to kayak? Does it help you reduce stress? Does reducing stress in your life help you “maintain” your life? Don’t all of your recreational pursuits help balance out your work endeavors and the other things that cause negative stress in your life? Does that not in some small (or perhaps large) way increase the likelihood of prolonging your life? I would suggest that it does. Try going through life with only negative stressors sometime and watch the impact it has on your health.

VES

24

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; indeeed, there is no alternative between existence and non-existence for something that is indestructible–in other words, it isn’t alive.

I found Miss Rand’s example of the indestructible robot to be quite illustrative of the fundamental alternative that living creatures face (i.e., existence or non-existence). I do, however, have a problem with how this example has been warped and put to “use” in this thread. There is no such thing as immortality and if you understood the nature of life you would understand that were anything actually immortal, it would not be alive (and values would not exist for it).

25

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; indeeed, there is no alternative between existence and non-existence for something that is indestructible–in other words, it isn’t alive.

I found Miss Rand’s example of the indestructible robot to be quite illustrative of the fundamental alternative that living creatures face (i.e., existence or non-existence). I do, however, have a problem with how this example has been warped and put to “use” in this thread. There is no such thing as immortality and if you understood the nature of life you would understand that were anything actually immortal, it would not be alive (and values would not exist for it).

You mean to say that if we one day discover a technology to bring dead people back to life, we would not need values to live?

Life is not just escaping death. Even a robot has to have values to live a prosperous life. Self-love is necessary psychologically.

26

Talk about missing the point.

OK, if you really want me to… :slight_smile:

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?

27

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)

28

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.

29

OK, if you really want me to… :slight_smile:

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)

30

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.

31

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?

She gave it as an explanation of why WE do have values.

32

as Dr. Peikoff aptly put it, “every is implies an ought.”

I must apologize for my hasty attribution. That line came from Ayn Rand and is quoted in “Fact and Value.”

33

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. :slight_smile: 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

34

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.

35

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

36

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).

37

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.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.