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.
Well, that is neither a philosophical nor scientific explanation. It is like saying that the God created this universe, just because he does that. No further deduction is required.
By the way, have you ever seen sunflower plant moving the face of its flower towards the sun all the time?
Is that not a conscious decision, taken collectively by the whole of the plant?
If sunflower plant does not has any collective and conscious decision making portion, how could it ever be do such act?
And, remember also, unlike animals and humans, plants do not have any central nervous system. So, how its different portions cummunicate and synchronise with each other?
With love,
Sanjay
dude its just some chemicals moving down the vine causing it to rotate for the photoreceptors
GWT,
I do not think that you are able to understand the issue.
With love,
Sanjay
I think it is quite clear what I mean by “life” and “living organism”. And as I also said several times: androids belong to the machines, cyborgs belong to the humans. So if humans wanted to become machines, they could only become cyborgs; and if machines wanted to become humans, they could only become androids. So cyborgs are humans, although with some or many features, properties, characters of machines, and androids are machines, although with some or many features, properties, characters of humans.
Machines do not have cells. A cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not living beings. Androids are machines. Cyborgs are humans. Humans are living beings. Living beings are not machines.
Arminius,
Zinnat has a point, thou maybe we are overlooking it. development per evolution of organisms is very gradual over a long time. There are no gaps within the continuum. So the problem is, of defining at what point can we say of a lower order organism, that it has no function in decision making? At what point, for instance the actions of a fly eating plant, can it be said, that there is a certain amount of understanding in terms of deciding to open its mouth and swallow a fly? Between the machine and man, there also exist a long developmental continuum, and if only a few human devices/traits/organs are left within its body, when is it, that it can be said to have
become a machine?
In other words on the cellular level there is a noticeable distinction, but on the molecular level, no such distinction pervades. It’s a structural and systemic arrangement .
I apologize for not having read the whole thread. I honestly still do not understand what is the difference between a cyborg and an android. To me, they are the same entities. Would you explain that?
This is true that living things are made of cells. But, at the end of the day, even cells are made of same basic ingredients as of machines. If we break down any living entity, which we can do now precisely, they are made of same inorganic compounds like water, carbon, iron etc. Then, what is that make organisms Live?
with love,
sanjay
Yes.
Cyborgs are humans with features, properties, characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to machines, but they can’t become machines. Androids are machines with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be on the way from machines to humans, but they can’t become humans. The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Yes, but that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Again: that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.
Do you know the biological definition of “life”?
Yes, i certainly have, and very big one too. This very simple and common point can brought down the whole premise of AI singlehandedly and successfully too.
That is certainly the case. Actually, it is so simple and common that we refuse to pay attention to it. Like Tixe said - it just happens thus forget it and move on to the bigger issues.
Orb, if an alien, from such a planet, where there were no plants, would ever come to the earth, i am dead sure that he would look into the plants first before animals/humans, for the simple reason that they are more challenging to deduct sentience wise.
It is understandable to some extent that animals/humans have sentience, because they have CNS and brain. But, what about plants which do not have any such things? What is creating their sentience?
Secondly, i find it even more surprising that we are trying to invent artificial humans before trying to invent artificial plants! if we cannot understand and replicate a live plant, how on the earth we could ever replicate live human ever, which is thousands time more complex than plants!
Is it not like trying to land on Mars before moon!
Science says that human dies when its brain stops working (even that is wrong and i can prove it scientifically right now even on the net). Right! But, what makes a plant die? They do not have any brain or even a heart! So, theoretically, should they not live forever?
Has anyone answers?
with love,
sanjay
It is still hard me to understand except the distinction of life. But, i take it.
True. i certainly not asked this specifically in that post but is the thread has not been around this issue all along?
Secondly, what if i ask those questions again now?
I do not think if there is any clear-cut biological definition of life. Or, i am not aware of that till now. There are only vague interpretations.
with love,
sanjay
plants do not have sentience. humans and animals do.
That is merely a statement rather than an argument.
I can say the same that plants also have sentience like humans and animals. But, can it serve any purpose or can convince anyone if i would not explain my reasoning behind that!
That is how what we are supposed to do in philosophy.
With love,
sanjay
it would have no mathematical basis. If plants have sentience, why not candy? There are moving chemicals inside of candy.
My friend,
I am not competent enough to argue with you, about this issue at least. I apologise for my shortcoming. Please find a suitable match for yourself.
With love,
sanjay
Plants “make decisions” through auto-responses, much like a thermostat “decides” when to turn on the heater. There is no remote recognition involved, merely direct contact and response.
And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.