Reading Philosophy

I was thinking, and I came to realize that people have a strong natural disassociation with machines or computers. Of course it is human nature to feel superior to other living beings, though it is more than that.

Human beings don't even acknowledge a computer as having the slightest possibility of being alive. I suppose, we have to define "alive" as an object which:

1. Can self-sustain with necessary resources.

2. Can reproduce (and not necessarily self-replicate, since we ourselves do not do so).

3. Can adapt to its surroundings.

I argue that these are the qualities which every living thing has. For example, a plant can sustain itself, as long as it has water and sunshine. It can also reproduce. And finally, it can adapt to its surroundings (winter/competitive plantlife).

If you agree with me that this is what alive is, then what if we created a machine which met these three criteria? Is it alive then? An almost impulsive response to that question is no. But why?

A computer is made from metal and silicone. How could that be alive, right?

Aren't we made from carbon and water? Isn't carbon the stuff of coal? The composition of cells is nothing living. However, the cell itself is alive. What makes that distinction? Maybe it is so firmly grounded in our basic understanding of the world, that we accept it as fact that a cell is alive. However, to even suggest that assembling metal and wire in the right combination could produce a life form is preposterous.

I believe that a large majority of the population would argue that nothing can be done to metal and silicone that would make it alive, not even if it imitated human beings in every respect. However, there is no reason to feel this way.

Unless you want to rewrite the definition as "alive" to include the fact that it "cannot be made of metal," I am willing to be the reason why people cannot come to terms with a living machine is that it faces them with the reality that they may not be anything more than a machine. And that is the core of it.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

Can a machine have free will?
can it feel compation?
can it feel remorse or shame?
is it capable of doing anything that it has not been programmed to do?
the answer is a resounding no
but say for the sake of argument your right and we are nothing more than clever machines, is it not true that a machine neads a creator a programmer?, in which case there must be a G-D.

is it capable of doing anything that it has not been programmed to do?
the answer is a resounding no

Wrong. It is perfectly feasable to construct such machines. As to your other 'fundamental' qualities you've identified they are in no way as mysterious as you clearly seem to think they are. But then people often have a mistaken view that emotions are somehow beyond physical explanation.

but say for the sake of argument your right and we are nothing more than clever machines, is it not true that a machine neads a creator a programmer?, in which case there must be a G-D.

Evolution is the blind programmer, so no need for the supernatural.

Even if you could programma a computer to appear to have emotions, they still would not be real
if you make a machine and you programme it to daclaite its undieing love for you, you surlly dont believe that this machine actualy feels that, its not realy feeling anything only what you programme it to feel.
I just wanna point out, the theory of evolution is just that a theory(they once had a theory that the world was flat)

Even if you could programma a computer to appear to have emotions, they still would not be real

And what precisely makes our emotions 'real' so to speak?

if you make a machine and you programme it to daclaite its undieing love for you, you surlly dont believe that this machine actualy feels that, its not realy feeling anything only what you programme it to feel.

What makes you think love is anything other than an evolved mechanism designed to aid the propagation of the species firstly by enabling sexual interaction and secondly building long-term relationships conducive to raising offspring?

We are just as programmed to 'feel', most people just tend not to think of it in this way.

I just wanna point out, the theory of evolution is just that a theory(they once had a theory that the world was flat)

Evolution isn't some random guess. You're abusing the word theory to mean hypothesis.
The theory, or hypothesis, that the world was flat was summarially destroyed by the Greeks who managed to measure the curvature of the Earth and come up with a fairly accurate calculation of the Earth's proportions. Most seafaring people's have also been long aware that the Earth is not flat. The reason s being obvious to anyone who sails.
The hypothesis for a flat Earth is summarially destroyed by the fact that there is no evidence to support this assertion.
Now in a similar way evolution isn't some random idea conjured up by some men sitting around and idly speculating. There's a mountain of evidence for it.

Saying evolution is just a theory is like saying gravity is just a theory or thermodynamics is just a theory. I have yet to see anyone other than The Onion propose Intelligent Falling or Intelligent Heat as valid alternatives to these scientific theories though.

Now if you can come to accept that humans are not the product of dust having life blown into it then we must come to the inexcapable conclusion that we the end product of a process that has been going on for millions of years. We are complicated meat machines.

Your right there is mounting evidence for evolution but all woefully inadiquet to explain how life got started there is no missing link no transitianal form from one species to another
its a theroy full of wholes.To present evolution as unquestianble proof intelectually dishonest.
If you throw all the componants of what it takes to build a computer/machine/robot into a heap and just leave in for mellenia are we to believe that all by itself it will coelesse into a cerfisticated computer/machine/ robot, highlly unliklly
how do you programme a meat machine to have free will?

Your right

inadiquet

transitianal

a theroy full of wholes.

unquestianble

componants

mellenia

cerfisticated

highlly unliklly

I think the real question is, why is it that those of us who speak English as a second language have a rather good command of it, and of all people in the world those from the UK tend to have the most god-awful spelling one could possibly imagine?
(And don't get me started about interpunction)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Apr 14, 2006.

You sound like my mum
i grew up in israel
i was tought to read and write hebrew not english
when i came to england i kind of had to teach myself how to read and write in english, but hay if im just a meat machine dont blame me if im malfunctioning blame my programmer(oh i forgot you claim i just evolved i have no progreammer is it then any wonder that i am malfunctioning)

Your right there is mounting evidence for evolution

No, MOUNTAINS of evidence.

but all woefully inadiquet to explain how life got started

Evolution does not attempt to explain how life got started. If you knew the first thing about the theory you'd know this.

there is no missing link no transitianal form from one species to another

Simply wrong.

its a theroy full of wholes.

Only if you're getting your knowledge about evolution on the back of postcards - which is where you seem to be getting your information from.

To present evolution as unquestianble proof intelectually dishonest.

I see. So your alternative is to present a false dichtonomy and a so-called 'theory' that is just idle speculation?

If you throw all the componants of what it takes to build a computer/machine/robot into a heap and just leave in for mellenia are we to believe that all by itself it will coelesse into a cerfisticated computer/machine/ robot, highlly unliklly

No, you are not to believe that. It is highly impossible, not just unlikely.

To suggest such a thing as an anology for what the theory of evolution states is simply to show one's own ignorance for what it is.

how do you programme a meat machine to have free will?

You show we have free-will first, then ask me that question.

This post was edited by cyborg on Apr 16, 2006.

I know enough about evolution to know that it is has by no means bean proven to be true, its a theory suported with insufficiant evidence
but as for humans being notheing but meat machines
of you i can believe that.
And as for free will. That is some thing we all have and only people who are afraid to take responsibility for thire actions would deny that they have free will

I know enough about evolution to know that it is has by no means bean proven to be true, its a theory suported with insufficiant evidence

That is clearly not that case otherwise you would not be spouting oft refuted fallacies and also claiming that is insufficient evidence when evolutionary theory is supported by many field of science.

but as for humans being notheing but meat machines
of you i can believe that.

Is that a veiled insult?

And as for free will. That is some thing we all have and only people who are afraid to take responsibility for thire actions would deny that they have free will

There are pleanty of people who would deny we have free-will for a variety of reasons none of which are related to how much one wants to accept responsibility for one's actions.

One of which would be that we are clearly bounded in what we can do and influence - we can will certain things all we want but lack the ability to implement that will.

And as for free will. That is some thing we all have and only people who are afraid to take responsibility for thire actions would deny that they have free will

I'm not so sure of that. After all, 'free will' is a decision we make based on previous input. When you see a red traffic light and stop, your free will has just been influenced. When a nerd walks by a store and sees a Linux-based kick-ass mobile phone in Star Trek design, he wants to own it because previous input tells him it's cool. Were you raised in a country where red means "go", or the nerd had grown up as an oil rig worker instead of a nerd, your decisions would have been different. These are rather basic examples, but the idea can easily be applied to any situation.

Of course one could also apply that idea if you, say, slaughter 20 virgins. "There is no such thing as free will, he had no choice but do it."
But then again, (the prospect of) punishment can influence your decision. If slaughtering virgins was a perfectly legal pastime and accepted by society, I'm sure the man/woman ratio on this planet would be extremely in men's favour. Thus, I think that even though there is no absolutely free will, we should act as if there were, because for all practical reasons it appears to be.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

First, lets not turn this into a flame thread. Obviously, this can be a sensitive issue on both sides of the coin. Nobody wants to think that computers are merely simplified versions of humans. However, lets approach this in a logical manner, and it will remain logical. Keep emotions out of your argument.

I think the issue of free will is a moot one. For every decision, it is not possible to say it was out of an act of free will as opposed to 'fate.' And seeing how there is no evidence to enlighten this argument, I don't see how arguing this will get anywhere. And in addition, how does free will tie in to computers versus humans?

Lightyear has made some interesting counterexamples, and cyborg has made some interesting points.

However, lets address some issues as to why a machine cannot be living:

Soul -
Firstly, we cannot even prove such a thing exists. And if we assume a human has one, then we could just as easily assume a machine has one (if I am wrong here, give me a counterexample). Therefore, the soul debate has to remain in the realm of the possible, but unprovable.

Flesh vs steel -
The argument is "flesh is alive, and steel is not." It's a valid statement. Lets break it down. Flesh, being composed of cells, are alive. This cannot be said of steel and machine parts, which are not alive, right? Yet, what composes a cell? Are the components of a cell living themselves, or are they a 'machine part' to serve the cell? Even if you could argue that say the mitochondria is living, could you then argue that the pieces which compose a mitochondria are living as well?

At a certain point, you must admit that all living things are pieced together with not living parts. Is a machine not composed of non living parts? So it fits the criteria for being a living thing in this regard (like a cell), does it not?

Organic tissue -
Okay, if we didn't mean that the tissue is composed of 'living' material, then the other side is that it is or is not 'organic' material. Lets define organic. Organic is any material composed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and sometimes helium. Obviously the same cannot be said for a machine, and that would be accurate. However, you have to consider what you're saying is that you are limiting life to only be things built using specific elements of the periodic table. What reasoning is there for this? Perhaps that *has* been the trend up until this point, but that's not reason enough to say all future life must continue this pattern, does it?

Emotions
Probably one of the strongest points that can counter the argument of living machines. However, it is difficult to define emotions. There is no model for emotions which can predict what happens next. While that may be what makes emotions emotions, it also makes it very difficult to say that we have it and machines do not. As far as we know, there exists a theory somewhere out in the realm of the unexplained on how emotions work in their entirety. And at that point, if it is proven, we can say with 100% accuracy if humans have it and if machines have it. Though, I'm guessing that our model of emotions would never be accurate, because an 'accurate' model might suggest machines can have emotion, and we could never accept that as a possibility.

So oddly enough, as instinctual as it is to categorically deny the possibility of machines being alive, there is no solid evidence to distinguish the two. For that matter, there is no evidence to distinguish machine and clay or humans and clay as 'living' or 'not living.'

So either we need a better working theory on something that is "alive" or we admit, as in the Bible, that we were shaped out of clay.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Apr 19, 2006.