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 the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

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)

Consider yourself hugged.

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