A robot is no more moral or immoral than a bullet or a missile. The choice is made when it is launched. Once it is put into action, it does what it is designed by humans to do (or something else if it fails), in accordance with the laws of physics. It makes no moral choices on its own.

If a robot is programmed to behave differently under different circumstances as represented by its sensor inputs, the choice of what is important data believed to represent different circumstances and what the action is designed to be are human choices.

I'm sorry I did word my question wrong, forget it.

thanks ever so, and the same to you.

Then why are you arguing so vehemently about what flow chart the robots would use to mimic morality.

The flow chart is not "Objectivist epistemology" as he labelled it. There is no such thing as "Objectivist epistemology as a combat co-routine". He doesn't know what epistemology is.

His flow chart is intended to reduce Ayn Rand's philosophy to a mechanical representation without regard to meaning and context, not an algorithm for a robot.

The stated purpose of the forum is: "Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for."

That does not mean an "echo-chamber exclusively for people who agree with Ayn Rand" and it does not mean a place for trolls who don't understand Ayn Rand's philosophy and who reject what they do not begin to comprehend to repeatedly misrepresent it in the name of "debate" as they demand to be taken seriously. Maphesdus is not a "like minded individual" and does not belong here.

"Precision" of thought does not mean turning philosophy into a "computer program". Thought is cognitive, not mechanical manipulation. I don't doubt that Maphesdus thinks the two sentences mean the same thing. That is typical of his lumping together whatever he feels like into invalid package deals. We have seen this from Maphesdus before, such as his lumping any kind of group or collaborative effort into "collectivism" and lumping rejection of his misrepresentations together with he wants to believe are "insults". By not thinking in essentials it's no wonder his posts are such a hodepodge of falsehoods and misrepresentation, and that he doesn't understand responses. This is one reason why it is futile to explain anything to him, and why explanations are for others and cannot be directed to him. Other reasons are his intellectual dishonesty and evasive responses loutishly personalizing the discussion rather than addressing content.

All one can do is ignore his epithets and point out for the benefit of others the obvious misrepresentations. You are quite right that there can be no "dialog" with a hyperactive troll, and it is worse than futile to follow him down all his evasive rabbit holes as he demands to be taken seriously. Maphesdus does not belong here at all.

No it is not the original question, which pertained to the relation of Ayn Rand's philosophy to the undertaking as such as described in the article. Objectivism cannot be "turned into a computer program" for anything. The notion of epistemology as a "combat co-routine" is ludicrous.

You differ from him on a lot more than the meaning of "initiation of force" (which he himself endorses to impose his racism). There is a lot more to this than oversimplifying the algorithms of a robot in a complex military scenario. He is trying to do this for what he thinks is Ayn Rand's _philosophy_.

His simplistic attempt to reduce philosophical thought and application of principles to a half page diagram at all is one instance of his rationalism mechanically manipulating words without regard to context and meaning -- both of which are ignored completely in a diagram. He is not and cannot "program" Ayn Rand's "philosophy".

But that regards method of thinking. Regarding its content he is hopelessly lost in his equating "non-aggression" with all of Ayn Rand's philosophy, of which he has no understanding at all. The notion that Ayn Rand's "epistemology" as a "combat routine" is so absurd that it makes your ears wilt. He has no idea what epistemology is or what Ayn Rand's epistemology in particular is.

There is a serious problem with some of these people's lack of ability to think in anything other than the methods of academic rationalism manipulating words as they pretend they are being "logical". They don't have the slightest idea of what Ayn Rand was talking about. The worst of them become trolls desperate to be taken seriously, and become hysterical -- in the name of "discussion" and "debate" of all things -- when they are not taken seriously, then resort to the usual name calling in their own feelings of persecution. There is no way to get through to them and it is a waste of time to try. Some of them aren't very bright to begin with. All you can do is point out how they are misrepresenting and leave them to their own devices to do whatever it is they are going to do as they lurch from one fad to another. There are more serious people worth talking to.