The Spiritual Turing Test

[_John Larsen]

This is a dual post on here and MAD:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32828

Imaging that a person is sitting in a large room filled with many computers. At each computer terminal an individual sits interacting with their own computer. Each person has a monitor and a keyboard, but the actual computer unit cannot be accessed accept through interacting with the computer via the keyboard and monitor.

The individual at the computer can shape the way the computer works by typing into the computer information and instructions. Likewise, the computer feeds back information and instructions to the user. However, the computer program can be a bit erratic. It doesn’t always do exactly what the user tells it to do. It often mixes up information it was given, and sometimes it appears to just randomly issues strange information and instructions. Since no one knows exactly how the computer program works, some think that this information comes from outside sources. Users can change just about every aspect of the way the computer works, if they are patient enough. They can change the way the text looks, how it says thing and how it interacts with the user. However, they cannot control it completely; it still reacts to some things in unpredictable ways.

The room is laid out in such a way that the individuals can communicate with each other, but they cannot see or interact with the computers of the others in the room. It is clear that while each computer program is similar, they all work a little different. Different groups of users have different beliefs about how the program works. These groups set up rules for interacting with the computer and they believe if you do not follow the “right way“, the computer is much more likely to spit out false or misleading information. These users generally wish that everyone would follow the rules and they tend to believe that computer experience of all is polluted by the wrong interaction of some people and their computers.

Many of the computer users believe in the Benevolent Programmer (BP). They believe the BP sits at a computer terminal outside the room and he has access to all of the computers of the people in the room. He can monitor everything that is typed in and everything the computer prints on the screen. He also knows exactly how the program works. He, they believe, will often send users information and instructions that show up on their monitor. He especially favors those who believe in him and worship him.

Some also believe in the Malevolent Programmer (MP). They believe that the MP used to work for the BP and can mimic his methods and style. The MP wants to wreck the whole system. He also can send information and instructions that show up on the monitor, but his messages are simply to confuse the users and thwart the work of the BP.

There are a few who believe there is no such thing as a BP or MP. They believe that everything that appears on the screen can be explained by the program of the computer. They also believe there is no way to prove that any message come from the BP or the MP, since any message that claims to be from either of them could, in fact be from the program itself, since this is the kind of strange thing the program does.

The believers, however, are not convinced. They believe that if you pay attention closely to the messages and ask the computer with sincerity, it will tell you which messages are false and which are true. They believe that the rules of their group were inspired by the BP and the instructions will help you discern the right messages.

Questions:
1. It there anyway possible to even know if there is a BP or MP?
2. How do we know that there is only one BP or MP and not 7 or 144,000?
3. How can anyone honestly assert they can tell the difference between the computer and the BP (or MP) since all they can evaluate is what appears on the computer?
4. Why would the BP insist people acknowledge his existence when he chooses to hid behind a system that conceals his existence?
5. Since the MP can mimic the BP, how can we believe anything at all, even if it seems to not come from our computer?

[_Some Schmo]

This is a fun post, but it has some technical issues. It just so happens that the technical issues are related to trying to make an anology about religion using a very well defined scientific invention, or applied science.

For instance, it's completely incorrect to claim "...the computer program can be a bit erratic. It doesn’t always do exactly what the user tells it to do." Fully functional computers (ie, those that aren't subject to defects in the hardware) always do exactly what they are instructed to do to a fault. The reason it sometimes seems like they don't is that they're obeying some command someone else gave it before of which the current user is unaware, or the series of actions leading up to the current action has created a unique state that was never accounted for programatically, but even in this case, it's still just obeying orders.

Another example is the assumption that the existence of BP and MP is unknowable. Through system logs, stack traces and such, one can determine the source of system messages quite easily. If a message is coming from outside the system, that can be proven.

There are a few others. I recognize this is intended to be a hypothetical, but one can't answer the proposed questions and expect analogous answers that one could apply to religious philosophy. Just for fun, I'll answer them to illustrate:

Questions:
1. It there anyway possible to even know if there is a BP or MP? (I already explained that we could determine this)
2. How do we know that there is only one BP or MP and not 7 or 144,000? (Well, through an IP trace, we can at least determine the number of computers sending these kinds of messages)
3. How can anyone honestly assert they can tell the difference between the computer and the BP (or MP) since all they can evaluate is what appears on the computer? (As I said, they can check the source of the messages)
4. Why would the BP insist people acknowledge his existence when he chooses to hid behind a system that conceals his existence? (This is a good question. You got me.)
5. Since the MP can mimic the BP, how can we believe anything at all, even if it seems to not come from our computer? (By checking the source IP each time to ensure it's one that sends trustworthy messages)

Still, I enjoyed the analogy.

[_JAK]

This is a fun post, but it has some technical issues. It just so happens that the technical issues are related to trying to make an anology about religion using a very well defined scientific invention, or applied science.

For instance, it's completely incorrect to claim "...the computer program can be a bit erratic. It doesn’t always do exactly what the user tells it to do." Fully functional computers (ie, those that aren't subject to defects in the hardware) always do exactly what they are instructed to do to a fault. The reason it sometimes seems like they don't is that they're obeying some command someone else gave it before of which the current user is unaware, or the series of actions leading up to the current action has created a unique state that was never accounted for programatically, but even in this case, it's still just obeying orders.

Another example is the assumption that the existence of BP and MP is unknowable. Through system logs, stack traces and such, one can determine the source of system messages quite easily. If a message is coming from outside the system, that can be proven.

There are a few others. I recognize this is intended to be a hypothetical, but one can't answer the proposed questions and expect analogous answers that one could apply to religious philosophy. Just for fun, I'll answer them to illustrate:

Questions:
1. It there anyway possible to even know if there is a BP or MP? (I already explained that we could determine this)
2. How do we know that there is only one BP or MP and not 7 or 144,000? (Well, through an IP trace, we can at least determine the number of computers sending these kinds of messages)
3. How can anyone honestly assert they can tell the difference between the computer and the BP (or MP) since all they can evaluate is what appears on the computer? (As I said, they can check the source of the messages)
4. Why would the BP insist people acknowledge his existence when he chooses to hid behind a system that conceals his existence? (This is a good question. You got me.)
5. Since the MP can mimic the BP, how can we believe anything at all, even if it seems to not come from our computer? (By checking the source IP each time to ensure it's one that sends trustworthy messages)

Still, I enjoyed the analogy.

Nice response SS.

Your bottom line is to look at the evidence. Only by doing that can one reach a conclusion which might be confirmed to be reliable or unreliable.

JAK

[_John Larsen]

This is a fun post, but it has some technical issues. It just so happens that the technical issues are related to trying to make an anology about religion using a very well defined scientific invention, or applied science.

For instance, it's completely incorrect to claim "...the computer program can be a bit erratic. It doesn’t always do exactly what the user tells it to do." Fully functional computers (ie, those that aren't subject to defects in the hardware) always do exactly what they are instructed to do to a fault. The reason it sometimes seems like they don't is that they're obeying some command someone else gave it before of which the current user is unaware, or the series of actions leading up to the current action has created a unique state that was never accounted for programatically, but even in this case, it's still just obeying orders.

It is true that computers do exactly what their instruction set (internal program) tells them to do, in that they are completely deterministic. But they do not always do what the user tells them to do. So in the example I have given, the computer stands for the functionality of our brain and our psyche and the user is the id. The full functioning brain does not always respond to the immediate desire of the id and the id does not understand the "program", however the program is following some set of orders in our brain. In fact, these might be deterministic in our brains, but that question has not been answered.

Another example is the assumption that the existence of BP and MP is unknowable. Through system logs, stack traces and such, one can determine the source of system messages quite easily. If a message is coming from outside the system, that can be proven.

That would be true if we had such logs. But in my example, the users had no access. Similarly we do not have any such trace. If God is communicating to use via our thoughts, we don't have any systematic log.

Questions:
1. It there anyway possible to even know if there is a BP or MP? (I already explained that we could determine this)
2. How do we know that there is only one BP or MP and not 7 or 144,000? (Well, through an IP trace, we can at least determine the number of computers sending these kinds of messages)
3. How can anyone honestly assert they can tell the difference between the computer and the BP (or MP) since all they can evaluate is what appears on the computer? (As I said, they can check the source of the messages)

See my response. We don't have access to this either in my example or in our brains. That is the problem of knowledge. My assertion is that we cannot tell the difference between thoughts and metaphysical communication since it happens through our thoughts, ergo there is no difference. So why postulate an outside entity.

You could counter this by saying the BP could walk into the room and announce his presence, which Joseph Smith claimed. However, that doesn't help those of us who must rely on what is on the screen.

[_Some Schmo]

I guess I find myself at a loss for what you were looking for then. Is this post more designed for TBMs than critics? If so, I get why you wrote it.

I still think it's really interesting that you came up with this scenario which was an anolog for the Mormon religion, and yet it's the areas where the anology breaks down that so well illustrate how much better it is to put your trust in science over religion. The fact that you have to take away a user's access to evidence in order to make the analogy work seems to be the entire point to me.

And thanks, JAK.

[_John Larsen]

I guess I find myself at a loss for what you were looking for then. Is this post more designed for TBMs than critics? If so, I get why you wrote it.

I still think it's really interesting that you came up with this scenario which was an anolog for the Mormon religion, and yet it's the areas where the anology breaks down that so well illustrate how much better it is to put your trust in science over religion. The fact that you have to take away a user's access to evidence in order to make the analogy work seems to be the entire point to me.

And thanks, JAK.

I'm just trying to capture the problem I see with any religion that relies on internal confirmation of truth such as Mormonism or Evangelicalism. In discussing the issue with them, I have trouble articulating what I see as the core problem, namely the source we use for the information is internal, and cannot be distinguished from our own thoughts except by relying on our thoughts.

[_Who Knows]

I'm just trying to capture the problem I see with any religion that relies on internal confirmation of truth such as Mormonism or Evangelicalism. In discussing the issue with them, I have trouble articulating what I see as the core problem, namely the source we use for the information is internal, and cannot be distinguished from our own thoughts except by relying on our thoughts.

Well, that's the problem. Mormon's don't think a 'spiritual witness' is internal. They think it's external.

Nevermind the fact that so do other people in other religions - and nevermind the fact that they're getting conflicting/contradictory 'witnesses'.

[_JAK]

This is a fun post, but it has some technical issues. It just so happens that the technical issues are related to trying to make an anology about religion using a very well defined scientific invention, or applied science.

For instance, it's completely incorrect to claim "...the computer program can be a bit erratic. It doesn’t always do exactly what the user tells it to do." Fully functional computers (ie, those that aren't subject to defects in the hardware) always do exactly what they are instructed to do to a fault. The reason it sometimes seems like they don't is that they're obeying some command someone else gave it before of which the current user is unaware, or the series of actions leading up to the current action has created a unique state that was never accounted for programatically, but even in this case, it's still just obeying orders.

It is true that computers do exactly what their instruction set (internal program) tells them to do, in that they are completely deterministic. But they do not always do what the user tells them to do. So in the example I have given, the computer stands for the functionality of our brain and our psyche and the user is the id. The full functioning brain does not always respond to the immediate desire of the id and the id does not understand the "program", however the program is following some set of orders in our brain. In fact, these might be deterministic in our brains, but that question has not been answered.

Another example is the assumption that the existence of BP and MP is unknowable. Through system logs, stack traces and such, one can determine the source of system messages quite easily. If a message is coming from outside the system, that can be proven.

That would be true if we had such logs. But in my example, the users had no access. Similarly we do not have any such trace. If God is communicating to use via our thoughts, we don't have any systematic log.

Questions:
1. It there anyway possible to even know if there is a BP or MP? (I already explained that we could determine this)
2. How do we know that there is only one BP or MP and not 7 or 144,000? (Well, through an IP trace, we can at least determine the number of computers sending these kinds of messages)
3. How can anyone honestly assert they can tell the difference between the computer and the BP (or MP) since all they can evaluate is what appears on the computer? (As I said, they can check the source of the messages)

See my response. We don't have access to this either in my example or in our brains. That is the problem of knowledge. My assertion is that we cannot tell the difference between thoughts and metaphysical communication since it happens through our thoughts, ergo there is no difference. So why postulate an outside entity.

You could counter this by saying the BP could walk into the room and announce his presence, which Joseph Smith claimed. However, that doesn't help those of us who must rely on what is on the screen.

John Larsen stated:
Similarly we do not have any such trace. If God is communicating to use via our thoughts, we don't have any systematic log.

JAK:
First, recognize the assumption God which is not established. Second, you’re correct, we, no one has a “systemic log.”

John Larsen stated:
We don't have access to this either in my example or in our brains. That is the problem of knowledge. My assertion is that we cannot tell the difference between thoughts and metaphysical communication since it happens through our thoughts, ergo there is no difference. So why postulate an outside entity.

JAK:
The “problem” with knowledge is accurate, reliable information. No evidence has been established for claims of “metaphysical communication.” It’s also an assumption.

John Larsen stated:
So why postulate an outside entity.

JAK:
Exactly. Absent credible evidence, claims should be dismissed, ignored, or treated with great skepticism.

JAK

[_BishopRic]

I'm just trying to capture the problem I see with any religion that relies on internal confirmation of truth such as Mormonism or Evangelicalism. In discussing the issue with them, I have trouble articulating what I see as the core problem, namely the source we use for the information is internal, and cannot be distinguished from our own thoughts except by relying on our thoughts.

Well, that's the problem. Mormon's don't think a 'spiritual witness' is internal. They think it's external.

Nevermind the fact that so do other people in other religions - and nevermind the fact that they're getting conflicting/contradictory 'witnesses'.

EXACTLY! To "Charity type Mormons," it's almost offensive to say their witness is a feeling; it's "God" speaking to them. But like you say, the amazing thing is that the radical Muslims, etc., say the same thing, but the "message" is completely contradictory, so a reasonable person would recognize that the "spiritual witness" process may be flawed and examine where the flaw is, and realize it may be in the interpretation of the "witness" itself.

But alas, it is so hard to admit we may be wrong...