Both of your statements are false, and humans are machines. Simply because they have a small degree of organic cellular randomization does not make them less machinelike. This only makes them less efficient, and more illogical.
Again: Your statements are false.
So I think we can close our “discussion”.
Good bye, little “machine”.
Humans are analog whereas machines a digital.
So, let’s say, some evil genius race way back when fabricated human “machines”, and we are machines but don’t know it. Then, this whole forum becomes irrelevant because the question should then read, 'Would machines ever replace other (human) machines. Then the problem reduces to one of defining what a machine is, and nothing more.
You nailed it, Orb.
That is the actual issue. The definitions of human and machines so much intangled in this thread that it becomes difficult to decide what to call whom.
I think that we should decide the definitions of humans and machines before deciding who will replace whom.
With love,
Sanjay
We know what humans are, and we know what machines are. This thread is a thread of a philosophy forum. So each ILP member who intends to post in this thread should know what humans and machines are and should know what life / biology and technique / technology are. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like “cyborg” and “android”. Humans are biological beings with cells, and a cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not biological beings. Although the human organisms work similarly as machines work - so that we can speak of a similarity between the organismic “machine” and the technical machine -, each human organism is based on life (biology), whereas each machine is based on technique (technology). Human beings are living beings, machines are technical resp. artificial beings.
Do we really know what humans are? When we walk down the street we only see skin. We presume to know what is underneath, but if we had X Ray eyes, we would see the following : Bones, cartridges, circuitry made of arteries , a heart in the middle beating eighty times a minute circulating it like a car’s water pump, feeding the organs, fueling the guts, and getting rid of waste through an exhaust system. This is what we would see. But we don’t see that. we know it, because that is what we were thought. Some actually see it, doctors, but through a dissection of non moving parts. So what we know, is what we see and what we do not see. But do we really know what makes it work, what holds a body together in its totally machine like apparatus?
the biology of it is mechanistic, and technical. We can only learn of it by reading of it in technical books.
The similarity between a human body, and a machine is vastly more similar than imagined. metal is composed of molecules, and so is the human body. The inorganic and the organic differs only in the existence of carbon elements . The difference between organic and inorganic is the addition of differing types of elements to carbon. The difference is zero in an inductive analysis, but different in a deductive one. that’s because deduction is a product of post inorganic evolution of inorganic compounds.
man and machine started from the same pool, and destined to evolve similarly , as machine and man reform into a the basic unity of the pool.
Do you remember my last post or did you not read it? All we need to know in order to post in this thread is that humans are living beings and machines are no living beings, thus that humans and machines are not the same. Additionally we know e.g. that humans created, create, and will create machines, including the first of those machines that created, create, and will create machines. There are similarities and analogies between humans and machines, of course, but these similarities and analogies do not change the fact that humans and machines are different. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like “cyborg” and “android”, we also would not need any difference in the meaning of the words “human” and “machine”, thus one of both words or even both words could - and would (!) - vanish. Saying “humans and machines are the same” is similar to the wording “humans and gods are the same” - both statements are false. But this falsity does not change the fact that humans want to be gods and to create something that is better than humans are.
Of course I read it, I would do You a disservice if I tried to answer something unread. Not only that, it would border on fraud.
My point is philosophical, and will try to in a roundabout way desribe what I mean.
What has happened to our way of thinking since the dawn of civilization, and I do not mean this as a lecture, only to lay a foundation to my blog up above,
Is, that is that the structural integrity of it has gone through changes of assimilated ideas which drew heavily on the similarity of constructions based on human models. there was a turnaround, whereby these models started to be deconstructed, to accommodate machine modeling based on data. The perfect model, even suggested through this forum is one which is more machine based, destined to overcome the human one. In and through this process, a dehumanizations is taking place, whereby the differences between machine and man are narrowing. The cyborg is such a model.
I was not suggesting that machines and human beings are identical, only that the modeling, of reality itself, is becoming more machine like and less human like.
Even though in the original vote I held that machines will not be able to overcome reality by a total human/machine integration, the fact remains, that even to be able to hold such a concept. The idea of
constructing on basis of such a model, implies that the systems are very similar in the first place, and will become nearer and nearer for them to be able to become identical. In this sense, machines and human beings are both nearing identical systems.
I disagree with the suggestion that Al will turn evil and eliminate humans, because man still retains the element of invention, and they will be aware, that is the humans, when Al will reach a point in its development, when it will pose a danger, in terms of
resisting human control. Once a feedback system develops, when power sharing becomes a control issue, various checks and balances will be established
to assure, that proper overflow will be grounded into alternative systems, which can modify and change these types of process.
The new models are only different in kind, but not in the type of systems necessary to function as a machine. That is what was meant, and not the literal way of interpreting human beings and machines as being identical.
humans are mostly digital, DNA is digital.
a bird solved this puzzle faster than most humans would have. most humans are inferior to birds. wallythekat.tripod.com/A_Pages/A … stein.html
living or non-living does not determine if something is a machine. if an AI can self-regulate and reproduce you don’t say it ceases to be a machine. If a woman goes through menopause and is sterile we don’t have a funeral and say she is no longer among the living.
Arminus,
It is still not clear what you are suggesting. What do you eaxtly mean by life or living organism? What would be the difference between a human and an android according to you? Is inclusion of any pure mechanical device in the humans is enough call them andriods? Is a human having his knee joint replaced by an artificial one worthy enough to be called an android? Or, he should has something else?
With love,
Sanjay
Science has accepted that a “human” or “homosapian” is anything founded on an RNA/DNA sequencing that can mate with a homosapian and reproduce (bear an offspring).
Even if artificially produced, if anything, mechanical or not, can do the above, it is “human”. Otherwise it is merely machine, artificial, incongruent, or a different species.
Okay.
Is the definition of the LIFE the same?
With love,
Sanjay
Of course not. Ants are “alive”.
The definition of “life” still varies but basically encompasses self-preservation and reproduction. Reproduction is actually a method of self-preservation, not independent of it. The inherent intent of reproduction is to form harmonious surroundings. Reproducing nanobots serve that function, but seldom (if ever yet) enact self-preservation, although it wouldn’t take all that much to include it.
Some military drones enact self-preservation but can’t reproduce … yet. Combine the two of those and you have a truly living machine; “Replicators” (as displayed in sci-fi films).
James,
Does your definition not suggest that plants are also Live?
Or not!
With love,
Sanjay
Yes. How is that an issue?
Do they have mind or consciousness too?
With love,
Sanjay
No.
Consciousness requires remote recognition. Plants don’t do that.
But some drones do.
If plants do not have ether consciousness or mind, how they make decisions?
With love,
Sanjay
Plants dont make decisions and neither do humans. Plants just “do” things.