[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHh50PHN5M[/youtube]
That isn’t really true either.
That refers much to RM:AO which is quite clear to me, but that does not answer my question, because reproduction or replication can be influenced by consciousness. So there are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as an interest, and (b) a conscious interest. With “human help” I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]).
Arminius:I have answered all your questions:
Yes, but in your way and according to your definitions/presumptions, not precisely according to my intent of asking.
Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.
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.
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!
We have many cyborgs. Zinnat, I answered your questions by using the definitions for those words, terms, and concepts you asked me about.
Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?
Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve.
I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked. Thus it was a little rhetoric question (I knew the answer - of course). You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:
A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) “help” them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
Or here for example:
Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled. =>
Please do not confuse “evolution” with “life”.
I think I can save the other examples.
A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the “building block of life”; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called “cell division”.
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.
Here you are decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to biology, biological definitions.
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?
Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.
How humans can create principle no-3 (reproduction interest)in the machines?
By programming, thus by consciousness.
There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With “human help” I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells).
Arminius:Whom or what do you mean by “them” in your sentence?
Machines.
But machines are no living beings.
Arminius:With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.
But, as i said above, your principle no-3 is not fulfilled in the case of machines. Then, how you are considering them evolving?
They are fufilled, because of the help (programming) of the humans, thus of the consciousness of the humans. Humans choose and decide via their consciousness (see above: b) and by programming whether machines choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism (see aboeve: a). Humans do with machines what humans do with humans. And if machines already choose and decide via their consciousness and by programming whether they choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism, then machines influence their reproduction or replication by their consciousness, thus completely by themselves - as much as humans do.
Arminius:Please do not confuse “evolution” with “life”.
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.
You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:
A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) “help” them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.
Or here for example:
Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled. =>
Please do not confuse “evolution” with “life”.
I think I can save the other examples.
Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.
As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.
James S Saint:Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.
No human consciousness, no human cells. Are you sure that machines are already completely independent? (This includes that they also do not depend on a program which is or can be [for example: temporarily] controlled by humans.)
As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.
Perhaps observation? If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.
For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.
As consciousness is now defined.
By whom?
But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.
Why?
As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.
Perhaps observation?
That is not enough!
Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.
If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.
If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.
For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.
But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).
That is not enough! Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses.
True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn’t even require intelligence.
If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.
True. Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental consciousness which all life has. There may be spiritual concerns but my difficulty is in the idea of something coming into and leaving the body. In short i have concluded that there must be a way to build up to consciousness e.g. If you keep adding neurons starting with one or a few. …same if those neurons are artificial naturally.
Arminius: Orb:As consciousness is now defined.
By whom?
The issue of what constitutes consciousness is a common topic in philosophy. The word “consciousness” merely means “with-awareness”.
con·scious (knshs)
adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one’s environment and one’s own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.The Question
But a common question arises concerning the limits of that definition. If something reacts to touch, it is displaying an awareness of such touch, else how could it respond? So is it conscious of its environment?In the case of a charged particle such as an electron, a behavior is noted that indicates that an electron is very aware of any other charged particle nearby, even without being directly touched. So is an electron conscious?
In the case of a person in a comatose state, it is hardly ever argued that they are conscious. Some will argue that there is a degree of mental activity still going on and thus perhaps a degree of consciousness, but certainly not what we call fully conscious. Yet the ears still react to sounds and send signals through nerves into the brain. They are in a sense, aware that they have been touched by their environment. So are the ears and nerves conscious?
The Distinction
There is a clear distinction that can be made between the more common usage of the term “consciousness” and the apparent awareness that inanimate objects display. That distinction can be made by the attempt at recognition of the source of stimulation.In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.
But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.
Also in the case of the comatose person, the ears and nerves make no attempt to recognize the remote cause of the sounds to which they respond. Recognition requires memory, association, and locating algorithms not present in the ears or signaling nerves.
Thus it can be said that inanimate objects and creatures that have a disabled mental functioning, are not conscious even though there is still purely physical awareness of environment.
Since that distinction can be made, other philosophical issues can be clarified.
The Universe
It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious?There is strong evidence that the universe does not attempt to recognize any source of stimulation any more than that electron. It merely reacts to immediate surrounding conditions and nothing more. As long as the immediate surroundings are the same, the reactions are the same. Thus it can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.
God and the Materialist
This conclusion gives the atheist and/or materialist just cause for denying that a universe, exclusive of living or artificial mechanisms within, is conscious. Fortunately for those religious people who understand that God is not the universe itself, such a conclusion is irrelevant.Also just as it is said that God is outside of time, meaning that time has no association or relationship to God, God is also outside of consciousness. The ever-present God has no need whatsoever for recognition algorithms or memory banks.
I didn’t say that ALL philosophical issues would be resolved.
So “consciousness is now defined” (Orb) as a “remote recognition” by you, James. But how do you define “remote recognition”? You say what and who does not have consciousness as “remote recognition” - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?
That is not enough! Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses.
True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn’t even require intelligence.
How would you define “consciousness” and “intelligence” then?
But how do you define “remote recognition”?
Being able to identify a remote object. The ability for your Samsung TV to recognize you and realize when you are not looking at the screen, as well as where on the screen you are looking, makes that TV conscious to that degree (still far from what you would call a “human consciousness”).
You say what and who does not have consciousness as “remote recognition” - but who (and what?) has it?
Huh?
I said that if an entity has the ability to recognize remote objects, it has consciousness of those objects.
And what does this mean in the context of this thread?
It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more.
Nanobots manipulate.
No, that is not true for two simple reasons.
1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots?
Wikipedia wrote:
Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometer (10-9 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.1–10 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in medical technology,[9] which could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.
Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.
Wikipedia wrote:
Molecular assembler … A molecular assembler, as defined by K. Eric Drexler, is a “proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision”. A molecular assembler is a kind of molecular machine. Some biological molecules such as ribosomes fit this definition. This is because they receive instructions from messenger RNA and then assemble specific sequences of amino acids to construct protein molecules. However, the term “molecular assembler” usually refers to theoretical human-made devices.
Wikipedia wrote:
Self-replication … “Molecular assemblers” have been confused with self-replicating machines. To produce a practical quantity of a desired product, the nanoscale size of a typical science fiction universal molecular assembler requires an extremely large number of such devices. However, a single such theoretical molecular assembler might be programmed to self-replicate, constructing many copies of itself. This would allow an exponential rate of production. Then after sufficient quantities of the molecular assemblers were available, they would then be re-programmed for production of the desired product. However, if self-replication of molecular assemblers were not restrained then it might lead to competition with naturally occurring organisms. This has been called ecophagy or the grey goo problem.[8]
One method to building molecular assemblers is to mimic evolutionary processes employed by biological systems. Biological evolution proceeds by random variation combined with culling of the less-successful variants and reproduction of the more-successful variants. Production of complex molecular assemblers might be evolved from simpler systems since “A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. . . . A complex system designed from scratch never works and can not be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a system that works.”[9] However, most published safety guidelines include “recommendations against developing … replicator designs which permit surviving mutation or undergoing evolution”.[10]
Most assembler designs keep the “source code” external to the physical assembler. At each step of a manufacturing process, that step is read from an ordinary computer file and “broadcast” to all the assemblers. If any assembler gets out of range of that computer, or when the link between that computer and the assemblers is broken, or when that computer is unplugged, the assemblers stop replicating. Such a “broadcast architecture” is one of the safety features recommended by the “Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology”, and a map of the 137-dimensional replicator design space[11] recently published by Freitas and Merkle provides numerous practical methods by which replicators can be safely controlled by good design.
Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.
Definition of nan’o•tech•nol’o•gy
So what exactly is nanotechnology? One of the problems facing nanotechnology is the confusion about its definition. Most definitions revolve around the study and control of phenomena and materials at length scales below 100 nm and quite often they make a comparison with a human hair, which is about 80,000 nm wide. Some definitions include a reference to molecular systems and devices and nanotechnology ‘purists’ argue that any definition of nanotechnology needs to include a reference to “functional systems”.
It seems that a size limitation of nanotechnology to the 1-100 nm range, the area where size-dependant quantum effects come to bear, would exclude numerous materials and devices, especially in the pharamaceutical area, and some experts caution against a rigid definition based on a sub-100 nm size.
Another important criteria for the definition is the requirement that the nano-structure is man-made. Otherwise you would have to include every naturally formed biomolecule and material particle, in effect redefining much of chemistry and molecular biology as ‘nanotechnology.’
The most important requirement for the nanotechnology definition is that the nano-structure has special properties that are exclusively due to its nanoscale proportions.The U.S. National Nantechnology Initiatve (NNI) provides the following definition:
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.
A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick; a single gold atom is about a third of a nanometer in diameter. Dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers are known as the nanoscale. Unusual physical, chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. These properties may differ in important ways from the properties of bulk materials and single atoms or molecules.
We found another good definition that is practical and unconstrained by any arbitrary size limitations (source):
The design, characterization, production, and application of structures, devices, and systems by controlled manipulation of size and shape at the nanometer scale (atomic, molecular, and macromolecular scale) that produces structures, devices, and systems with at least one novel/superior characteristic or property.Second, quantum effects can begin to dominate the behaviour of matter at the nanoscale - particularly at the lower end - affecting the optical, electrical and magnetic behaviour of materials.
Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, Subsea hydraulics engineer
It’s not obvious they’re even possible. A nanobot is not just a tiny robot – it operates on fundamentally different physical laws than the macro-scale universe. Quantum effects become large enough to seriously interfere with bot function (or even become dominant) and inter-atomic forces can make simple operations like “grab that molecule and move it” next to impossible. For example, once you grab an atom in a nano-claw, it will probably stick to the claw to the point where you can’t let it go again. This type of cold-welding already happens in the macro scale with polished flat surfaces in a vacuum, and gets worse and worse as you get smaller.
It’s not only a matter of scaling down and adapting the manipulators, there’s also contamination to worry about. I’ve heard it said that there is enough sodium in a drop of human sweat to ruin every chip on the assembly line in a modern processor foundry. High tech materials as we know them today require correspondingly high cleanliness. That’s fine when you’re sealed inside a chip package but not for a robot interacting with the environment. Any device made of a number of atoms we can individually count is going to be so small that a rogue ion sticking to it will likely shut it down altogether.
Jean-Christophe Gomez-Lavocat, Founder of WordiZ - Nanotech PhD Student
I have been working on such a field, and I can tell you that the semantic here is quite misleading. Initially, people would call a micro-robot, or nano-robot, some device that is millimiter sized (at best 100 microns).
Others are talking about nano motors… which actually is a molecular device progressing as Myosin.
On the other end, some issues happen when you go done to the microscale, let apart the nanoscale. In liquids you face an issue with Low Reynolds Number and the so called scallop theorem, that prevent you to propel unless you have some non time-reversible motion pattern. On a surface, contact forces becomes much more relevant. In the air, well, wind is a big enemy.
Randy Crawford
If you’re referring to Eric Drexler’s form of nanobots, my answer is, “It’ll never happen”. Nanomachinery that resembles macromachinery probably cannot exist, as other responders have suggested. Quantum mechanical and thermodynamic effects do not favor the rise of inorganic nanodevices with bearings, spindles, and wires. (Look to Richard Smalley’s writings and interviews on the subject for an informed opinion.)
My day job is in designing NEMS and MEMS devices.
We are not close to any nanobot in any way. In fact, nobody uses the term nanobots seriously (unless they are talking to popular media channels and just want to motivate their research). The images of the thin-film devices we created using the Sandia National Labs SUMMiT V technology are extremely misleading since they are being taken out of context. Those are NOT functioning/commercial MEMS devices, they are proof of concept prototypes that we used to motivate funding for internal research into materials, tribology, MEMS class III device reliability and failure - and they were cool to build, of course. (And the ‘Torsional ratcheting actuators’ and ‘microengine’/two orthogonal comb drives actually work - only not reliably or for long periods of time). The microgrippers/tweezers (not Sandia work) are micro-manipulation tools - requiring a desk full of hardware to operate.
How much longer will we have to wait? Let’s say making a nanorobot is like landing on the moon, and we have just started thinking about using steam as a power transmission source. We need an industrial revolution and a reshaped world economy in addition to countless new inventions/discoveries before we get to the equivalent of Mars rovers in nanobots.
In response to somebody speculating that the ‘government’ already has nanobots, or even microbots - The Govt has been made all-powerful, yes, but it is not that powerful that it can avoid the rules of scale and physics. We are taking baby steps when it comes to MEMS/microtechnology - in fact all the commercially adopted MEMS tech adopted over the last decade (2004-2014) were originally implemented in functionality and scale before/around 1980’s and invented even earlier! Your accelerometer/gyro/microphone/pressure sensors were around in very similar form factors in the 1970’s!!!
So the government has some more cooler MEMS than you have heard of in the mass media, but not that much cooler. The private industry/academia almost always create all breakthrough research. The govt only moves in to capitalize and lock in IP or create licensing opportunities.
I was not merely referring to replication, thus reproduction, but also and especially to reproduction interest, when I said this:
Arminius wrote:
But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man’s help.
Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That’s the question.
But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to?
Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.
Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.
I know that Zinnat (Sanjay) belongs to the “no”-sayers (see here, here, here, here, here) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the “80%-yes”-sayer.
My personal/previous opinion does not matter for me when i revisit any issue. I can throw it out of the window without any hesitation, provided i find a better alternative.
with love,
sanjay
zinnat13:there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.
And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.
And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.
There is certainly a limit/condotions for consciousness too and that is precisely why it cannot be found in/with every complexity.
Secondly, not the whole of nature, but only conscious part of the nature produces self replicating nanobots. This appropriate environment should be a such hosting body which entails consciousness. Otherwise, the guest DNA cell will die.
with love,
sanjay
zinnat13:Why cells are not machines? What is your benchmark of differentiation?
My argument is that plant cells are not machines because they are live and governed by the consciousness of the plant. What is your argument?An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?
Arminus, i am not sure whether you are asking or telling your reasoning?
with love,
sanjay
Microsbots;
I think they have the microbot issue well covered.
Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;
Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.
An unwarranted remark. I do not think that ia am being childish here by any streach of imagination.
We have many cyborgs
Again, where?
I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked
Okay. I did not realize that.
zinnat13 wrote:
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?
Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.
How my question was out of the context? I was also referring to the definition of the independent viable unit in the biological sense.
By programming, thus by consciousness.
There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With “human help” I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells).
You may say so but i do not think that it could be defined as reproduction interest in true sense, as far it is controlled by any outside entity. Yes, one time programming is acceptable but not a continuous interference.
with love,
sanjay
As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.
Perhaps observation? If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.
For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.
No perhaps in it. There has to be an obsever in the first place, everything else comes later.
That observer is precisely what consciousness is. And, any cognition/life is not possible without it. This is the crux of all life forms and everything is built around it. As soon as you lave it out of the equation, the life would be lost and the entity would stop functioning; death.
with love,
sanjay
Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.
If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.
That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions.
Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human’s capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.
Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority?
But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).
Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).
with love,
sanjay