Re: [asa] Are TE and ID Really That Far Apart?

>
>
> If you in fact design into the robot all those capabilities, and the
> design necessarily includes some "imperfections," then I don't think you get
> "off the hook" for those imperfections just because the robot does the
> physical work. And it's easy to see how even a house built to "the highest
> standards" will have possible imperfections. Even the best-constructed
> house, for example, has to use building materials such as wood which can
> catch fire, degrade over time, include surfaces on which people can bang
> their heads, etc. The physical universe, practical cost and time
> constraints, and so on, mean the "best" design cannot be perfectly safe.
>
> Dave O,
>
Interesting scenario you have here. The problem of Opderbeck's Robot. But
keep in mind there are various camps of people out there - with various
views. And these present some interesting problems:

Just a few:

Group 1. Some will insist the robot is not designed but instead developed
entirely due to natural causes because there are no other causes possible.
Perhaps the robot's brain came from software viruses, which are known to be
self-replicating. To even whisper a suggestion that the robot did not
originate from totally natural processes would be, in this groups way of
thinking, to commit a religious act. It would be to allow "an Opderbeck or
a Cooper's foot in the door" - and that would be a 'for sure' science
stopper, and cannot be allowed. But take heart - there is a silver lining
- software design patterns can be discussed in philosophy class or in
history class!

But please don't tell my boss about the software though because I get paid
to create software. If my employer were find out I could be replaced by
letting a wind blow little silicon nodules (sand) into the lab, or by
viruses from over the internet, I might have to retire early. But
that's ok because I do plan to don a collar and start "The First Church
of Software Design Patterns" as a second career.

 Group 2. Theological Roboticists will say that Opderbecks and Coopers are
perfect - and therefore wouldn't have ever built robots, or any other
machines, containing small flaws. And therefore did not.

Group 3. This group is made up of empiricists. They insist that although
Opderbeck may have thought up the robot at 3AM after ingesting too much
greasy pizza at the Staten Island Ferry (is that place still there, BTW?),
and that therefore it is reasonable for people to have faith in the
existence of Opderbeck as long as they keep it to themselves, there is no
empirical way for science to detect whether the robot just happened. After
all, new types of robots appear trillions of times each day - everybody
knows that - and there is no way for science to tell if Opderbeck is behind
the scenes popping these out like little virtual particles out of a sea of
Higgs Bosons. Since science cannot test for Opderbeck, nor falsify him,
there simply cannot be any discussion of Opderbeck in the science
classroom.

Group 4. Finally there are the anti-empiricists. This group has no
interest whatsoever in measuring the robot's design scientifically. Instead
they are interested in who the imposter Opderbeck is because they know he
isn't the designer. They angriliy denounce that Opderbeck isn't God, but
really must be a space alien, and therefore cannot have designed the
robot. And if he did, they want nothing to do with all that. It just isn't
proper design. No wonder the robot has flaws!

Sorry - I couldn't resist a little midnight humor, no matter how lame it
will look in the morning. (I'll blame Luigi's pizza at the ferry).

> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 1 01:01:55 2008