How different are we compared to a man-made machine?

[Martian]

This is something that always buffled me.Is an organism really different if you compare it with a machine?Many people will disagree with this opinion saying, for example, that living creatures have consciousness and some traits that cannot be compared with a machine.But the similarities between a living organism and a machine are many.Both of them are a creation built with a certain logic.Both of them can learn and adapt on their environment.
Have you ever thought the possibility that we are a different type of machine, capable of reproduction?

[Himster]

Man-made machines can totally replicate themselves.

The real question is: do we make our machines to be like us? answer: yes.

[Corvis]

The key difference is machines are built for a specific purpose, and they absolutely fail at any other task they are not designed for. Humans have a much greater range of versatility and ingenuity across our entire species.

The real question is: do we make our machines to be like us? answer: yes.

You're one of those people just waiting for a robot to have sex with, aren't you?

[Martian]

The key difference is machines are built for a specific purpose, and they absolutely fail at any other task they are not designed for. Humans have a much greater range of versatility and ingenuity across our entire species.

Mmm we are just a little more complicated.Nevertheless we have machine-type characteristics

[Gordon Freynman]

Mmm we are just a little more complicated.

Multi-cellular organisms are far more complicated than any man-made machine, by billions of light-years.

[MentshmitT]

How different we are compared to a man-made machine?

We are closer to grand chimpanzee and bonobo than to machines. Basically, we are quasi the fifth genus of the grand apes.

[Himster]

The key difference is machines are built for a specific purpose, and they absolutely fail at any other task they are not designed for. Humans have a much greater range of versatility and ingenuity across our entire species.

You have to watch battlestar galactica. It's awesome and will make you become a theist.

You're one of those people just waiting for a robot to have sex with, aren't you?

Only if she agrees to split the bill.

[Col. Tartleton]

You have to watch battlestar galactica. It's awesome and will make you become a theist.



Only if she agrees to split the bill.

Best post I've seen on this forum.

[Helm]

We're certainly machines of some description, just naturally made. For as long as we're stuck within the shackles of the flesh anyway.

[Himster]

We're certainly machines of some description, just naturally made. For as long as we're stuck within the shackles of the flesh anyway.

What is naturally made? Is in ant-hill un-naturally made? Or a bee-hive?

[MentshmitT]

We're certainly machines of some description, just naturally made. For as long as we're stuck within the shackles of the flesh anyway.

Machines are no persons with individual traits and a will of their own. We are and have these.

[Helm]

Machines are no persons with individual traits and a will of their own.

Who said they can't be? Our individual traits are programmed in by genes and interaction with our external environment in any case. In the future we could quite easily build thinking machines just life ourselves, perhaps even superior to us in intellect.

[MentshmitT]

Who said they can't be?

We would such a "machine" probably no longer call a machine but a person. The idea that living things can be seen as a kind of machines is old and was popular during the 18th century. It is a false concept nevertheless for the reasons I have mentioned and further even more important reasons.

[Helm]

We would such a "machine" probably no longer call a machine but a person.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you can be both.

[Elfdude]

I'm going to take a different route to most's conclusion, to describe us as immensely complex machines would not be inaccurate. Misleading but from a technical perspective completely true.

Our brains and thought processes run off of feedback loops and our brain is an enormous neural network, it's simply a biological neural network rather than a computer. We use procedural rule generation to adapt to our environment much like the AI of many games. The only difference is our world in which to learn is much greater than any game and the data we must process is much more vast than any machine.

The real difference between us and computers however is that computers are completely linear. To get an accurate picture of how complicated our brains are you would need to compare the brain to the entire internet itself. They both even function on the same principles (yay for neural networks). Each computer is essentially a neuron and through connecting to other computers (neurons) new information is generated and created. However even this comparison is heavily limited and doesn't do justice to the awesome complexity of the human brain.

Forgive me for assuming though but this seems like an attempt to show that machines = designed therefore man = designed. This isn't true at all. The snowflake argument perfectly demonstrates that vast complexity uniqueness can arise in the natural world. If you don't know what that is every snowflake is unique and vastly complex, however this uniqueness arises from the organization of one molecule into near infinite possible combinations. If a god exists he used the tools that science discovers to create the universe. There's simply too much evidence to assume that science is wrong and religion is correct on that. However, the difference between science and religion is that science requires a positive reason (not a defense, not an attack of science, a positive reason to believe in god) to posit god's existence, religion requires simply faith.

[Helm]

In religion the body and mind are only things we have and use so there's no incompatiblity between religion and science on this matter. We get to discard all this meat at some point reveal our spiritual form of awesomeness, something to look forward to. No need to rush though you may well put your machine organism to good use in the world while it functions.

[Elfdude]

The incompatibility comes from the denial of scientific theories in favor of unsubstantiated religious ones. Most notably the creationism martian is subtly pushing. There is no room for god to take an active role in the design of humans. We know how it happened. Thus the only thing left to religious is to move the goal posts to god created the law (like sig does IIRC) which in turn gives him the credit for creating man. Unfortunately this means you must reject what many take to be literal in the bible if you are at all knowledgeable and intellectually honest. I honestly don't know where martian falls on that scale yet though.

[Martian]

The incompatibility comes from the denial of scientific theories in favor of unsubstantiated religious ones. Most notably the creationism martian is subtly pushing. There is no room for god to take an active role in the design of humans. We know how it happened. Thus the only thing left to religious is to move the goal posts to god created the law (like sig does IIRC) which in turn gives him the credit for creating man. Unfortunately this means you must reject what many take to be literal in the bible if you are at all knowledgeable and intellectually honest. I honestly don't know where martian falls on that scale yet though.

Still you havent answered me:What makes Life really different compared to a man-made machine.Since you believe that a "soul" doesnt exist we are just robots(only built in a different way and with different materials)

Bty really we know how Life was created?Really?
What science knows is that Life evolves and that it came from the sea.All other theories like Abiogenesis are 100% speculation that emerge from the logic that Life is a natural phenomenon(still no proved).How science finds the scenario of a creator more strange compared to the scenario that a piece of Life emerged 3 billion years ago and without programm and goals conquered the world is a mystery to me

[Helm]

One interesting bit of Christian philosophy I've read somewhere is that whatever God thinks about is created, along with the process that lead up to the creation. So if he thought of humans he had to think of all things that would eventually lead up to humans as well. It's a way of combining Creationism with evolution without any conflict between the two.

[Elfdude]

That doesn't combine them without conflict, it gives dominance to evolution and moves the goal posts to god used evolution to do it.