Yes, but in your way and according to your definitions/presumptions, not precisely according to my intent of asking.
Now, here you defined cyborgs and androids. Of course, i asked this but the point is whether we have any cyborg in reality!! And, if not, how it is any different from sci-fi films!
Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve. Forced change/development from outside does not go well with intent of evolution, unless one wants to define in such way, which i consider intrusion.
I have some issues with this too. You can call a cell as a unit of the organism but it is neither the last step of the ontology nor the building block. When you say building block, it gives the impression that everything ends here and no further deduction is possible, which is not true in the case of cells. We are aware of the subsets of a cell.
Secondly, a cell is not an independently viable unit. Means, if you detach a cell from its mother organism, it will not survive. If that is true, how it becomes independent?
Yes, that was a linguistic mistake. I apologize for that. I am still finding difficulties to be accustomed with my phone. Laptop is far better alternative.
How humans can create principle no-3 (reproduction interest)in the machines?
That is James assumption and i cannot accept it as a fact unless he cannot provide some example/evidence. I do not consider the premise of one day it will as a fact. That is a possibility which may or may not happen.
Machines.
But, as i said above, your principle no-3 is not fulfilled in the case of machines. Then, how you are considering them evolving?
No, i am not. But, i do not see them happening independent of each other either.
Evolution cannot happen without life and whenever there is life, it evolves by default. It cannot be stopped from evolving by any outside force either, as long as evolving entity remains alive.
with love,
sanjay